‘Increasing lethality in all areas’: US Air Force declares space a new ‘warfighting domain’

‘Increasing lethality in all areas’: US Air Force declares space a new ‘warfighting domain’

“We are moving forward with modernization in space, so we’re increasing our lethality in all of our areas of endeavor,” Air Force Secretary Heather A. Wilson told reporters Thursday. “And we are shifting to space as a warfighting domain.”

In 1967, the United States and the Soviet Union signed the Outer Space Treaty which prohibits signatories from placing nuclear weapons or any other weapons of mass destruction in outer space. The accord, however, stopped short of limiting the deployment of conventional weapons.

Wilson said Congress has proposed to increase the funding of space-related military programs even beyond the levels sought by the Air Force. Section 1605 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2018 also classifies space as a potential “combat domain.”

“It is the policy of the United States to develop, produce, field, and maintain an integrated system of assets in response to the increasingly contested nature of the space operating domain to [among other things] deter or deny an attack on capabilities at every level of orbit in space,” as well as to “defend the territory of the United States, its allies, and its deployed forces across all operating domains,” Section 1605 reads.

“Everyone agrees that space needs to be integrated, normalized as a part of a joint warfighting effort. This year’s budget… The FY18 budget proposal increases what the Air Force is proposing to spend on space by 20 percent,” Wilson added.

Defense Secretary James Mattis has made modernizing America’s capabilities in space one of his priorities in his efforts to make US Air Force “more lethal every day.” He earlier called on Congress to pass the NDAA so the Pentagon can “invest in critical warfighting capabilities, including in space.”

“Secretary Mattis has been very clear in his guidance to all the services that we are to go look at how do we increase lethality and readiness,” Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. David L. Goldfein, sitting next to Wilson, told reporters. “The nation expects its Air Force to own the high ground, the ultimate high ground and achieve space superiority which is like air superiority – freedom to attack and freedom to maneuver.”

Most of America’s space strategy is coordinated from the National Space Defense Center (NSDC) at Schriever Air Force Base in Colorado. Its experts are already devising potential space fighting scenarios.

“We do our best as a department when we follow a logic trail that actually goes from a threat, to eventually, an acquisition. And the steps are no different for space. Access the threat. From the threat, you define a strategy. From the strategy, you define a concept of operations, or what we call Conops… From those Conops you derive requirements, and then from those requirements you then acquire,” Goldfein said. “The Secretary and I also spent an entire day with all the four and three-star leadership of the Air Force, doing a full-day tabletop exercise on warfighting in space. So we are moving forward.”

Wilson announced that the Air Force awarded a $100 million contract to the Space Enterprise Consortium last week. Under the agreement, the South Carolina firm is to work on prototypes for the Department of Defense for broad “space-related technologies,” such as “ground segment, launch segment, space segment, software and processes.”

“The most important thing is to integrate and normalize space, as part of a joint operation. The US Air Force has about 70 percent of what is in space, and my authorities are to organize, train and equip airspace forces for the conduct of combat operations when they go to the combatant commander,” Wilson said.

“And as we transition from a benign domain from which we monitor and report to a warfighting domain, this is a significant shift that we are leading as we go forward,” Goldfein added. “And so, as the Secretary said, normalizing space as a warfighting domain means we integrate all those capabilities, tried and true principles of joint war fighting in this domain as we go forward.”

_____________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on ‘Increasing lethality in all areas’: US Air Force declares space a new ‘warfighting domain’

Putin: Someone is harvesting Russian bio samples for obscure purposes

Putin: Someone is harvesting Russian bio samples for obscure purposes

[Do you think the US Military Complex is interested only in protecting Americ? The US war machine is actively at war all the time, to one degree or another, with multiple countries and keeps adding more countries to the list. The weirdest ongoing push to war is the US’s obsession to war with Russia. Military laboratories located all around America work 24-7 developing weaponized diseases to be planted in foreign nations as well as in America. These war mongers are insane, filled with hubris. They are salivating over “Full-spectrum dominance” (military superiority over the whole world), and they will be satisfied with nothing short of it.  – ed. ACM]

(from RT –

Russian genetic material is being harvested all over the country, purposefully and professionally, President Vladimir Putin has said, possibly hinting at the US Air Force’s earlier move to acquire Russian tissue samples.

Putin was presiding over a meeting of Russia’s Human Rights Council Monday, when he was informed of live broadcasts from polling stations during the recent regional elections being inundated with foreign viewers.

Council member Igor Borisov said the statistics showed that nearly a million views came from abroad. He hinted at a sinister motive behind those viewings.

© Mike Segar ‘Weaponizing viruses’? US Air Force places ad for bio samples from Russians

“The question is, why so many interested people are watching our elections and, in fact, recording the images of people, and how those images will be used further,” queried Borisov, who is also the chairman of the Russian Public Institute of Electoral Rights.

While his skepticism might be enough to set some conspiracy theorists on edge, Putin followed up with comments that will perhaps push them over.

“Images are one thing, but do you know that biological material is being collected all over the country, from different ethnic groups and people living in different geographical regions of the Russian Federation? The question is – why is it being done? It’s being done purposefully and professionally. We are a kind of object of great interest,” Putin told the Council.

He never specified who was behind the shady dealings in Russians’ biological samples.

While the Russian president’s claims may sound like the stuff from X-Files, it’s actually grounded in fact.

In July, the US Air Force Air Education and Training Command issued a tender on FedBizOpps, a US government website, seeking to acquire samples of ribonucleic acid (RNA) and synovial fluid from Russians. All samples – 12 of RNA and 27 of synovial fluid –“shall be collected from Russia and must be Caucasian,” the tender said. What exactly was meant by ‘Caucasian’ is open to interpretation. It also wants information on the donor’s sex, age, ethnicity, weight, height and medical history. Notably, the Air Force said, it would not consider tissue samples from Ukraine.

While such samples might be needed for purely medical research purposes, wanting only Russian tissue samples specifically, is what sent speculations into overdrive.

Is the Pentagon working on a biological weapon to target Russians? Perhaps unlikely speculated Franz Klintsevich, the first deputy chairman of the Federation Council’s Committee for Defense and Security, but adding that it’s a scenario that cannot be totally ignored.

“I’m not saying that it is about preparing a biological war against Russia. But its scenarios, are, no doubt, being worked on. That is to say, in case the need arises,“  Klintsevich wrote on Facebook, referring to Putin’s revelations.

He went on to note that he believes the Russian President’s pronouncement of the practice was for good reason, claiming that although such practices has been well-known, it has taken on a “shameless” scale recently.

“The President’s warning is very timely. Relevant agencies in the West should know that we are aware of their interest,” he said.

Putin himself, however, reassured the Human Rights Council there’s nothing to be afraid of.

“Let them do what they want, and we must do what we must,” he stated emphatically.

______________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Putin: Someone is harvesting Russian bio samples for obscure purposes

Stop Saying, “Putin Invaded Ukraine and Annexed Crimea”

By Chris Kanthan –

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it” – Goebbels, Hitler’s propaganda minister. This is perfectly applicable to the accusations about Russia and Putin regarding Ukraine. Every pundit and politician keeps repeating the mantra that Putin invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. However, like many big lies, this narrative quickly falls apart under objective scrutiny.

Putin did not “invade” Crimea in 2014. Russia has a naval base in Sevastopol, Crimea, and thus it’s normal for Russian soldiers to be in Crimea.

Crimea wasn’t even truly a part of Ukraine. It was known as the “Autonomous Republic of Crimea” after the dissolution of the USSR.

Putin did not “annex” Crimea. Crimea had a referendum and the people overwhelmingly (>95%) chose to go with Russia.

Why the referendum was not “rigged”: More than 75% of Crimeans speak Russian as their native language. Obviously they would choose to join Russia. There’s also intense and overt anti-Russian racism in Ukraine. For example, since 2014, Ukraine has banned Russian TV stations, Russian social media, websites, etc.

Crimea hasn’t protested after or since the referendum. In fact, Crimeans called the outcome “going back home.”

Historical link between Russia-Ukraine-Crimea: It’s important to remember that Crimea has belonged to Russia for 200+ years (since 1783). In 1954, Russian leader Khrushchev – a Ukrainian by birth – transferred Crimea to Ukraine. He did it as a goodwill gesture to celebrate the 300th anniversary of Ukraine becoming a part of Russia. Nobody in Russia at that time could foresee the fall of the USSR.

 

Ukraine borders Russia, and Kiev was the birthplace of Russia more than 1000 years ago.

Half of all Ukrainians speak Russian. The eastern half of Ukraine is predominantly made up of ethnic Russians and would gladly secede and join Russia any time. In fact, Ukraine has been virtually split in half for the last three years.

Crimea’s Strategic Importance: Black Sea – where Crimea is located – is strategically important to Russia, since it’s the only gateway to the Mediterranean, Africa, etc. Thus it’s important for shipping, oil/gas pipelines, as well as for military operations. It’s not an exaggeration to say that it would be suicidal for Russia to give up Crimea and control of Black Sea.

Globalists Coveting Ukraine/Crimea: Going back 170 years, the British and the French attacked and stole Crimea from Russia. Thus the West attacking Russia has been a constant theme for two centuries (add in Napoleon, Bolshevik revolution funded by Wall Street, Germany during WWI, and Japan funded by Wall Street).

The US has also been planning on “stealing” Ukraine from Russia for a long time. Right after WW II, the CIA  and guerrilla groups within Ukraine to stir up trouble for the USSR. After the fall of the USSR, geopolitical strategist Brzezinski laid out the plan in his book, The Grand Chessboard, where he suggests that Ukraine should become a part of EU and NATO by 2010.

If Ukraine becomes a part of NATO, the US will place missile systems there, just 400 miles from Moscow. Moreover, Ukraine can start a war with Russia, and then US/EU will be obligated to join the fight. Hello, World War III.

Neocon Schemes: As Asst. Sec. of State Victoria Nuland admitted, since 1991, the US has spent more than $5 billion to lure Ukraine away from Russia. This was spent on propaganda, bribes, NGOs, recruitment of activists etc.

What happened in 2014 was a simple and illegal coup d’état. George Soros, John McCain, Neocons and EU leaders openly intervened in a sovereign nation’s democracy and manipulated the system.

Rather than waiting for a new election, Western elites staged violent protests in Ukraine’s capital and simply overthrew the government. (Neo-Nazi groups such as Svoboda played a major role in the riots.) Then new unelected President and Prime Minister were hand-chosen by the West and installed as puppets.

Horrific Results: Just like they destroyed Libya and Syria in “humanitarian wars” and then moved on with no guilt, the Neocons have done the same in Ukraine. For three years, a civil war has been raging on in Ukraine.

Its debt-to-GDP ratio has doubled and close to 60% of the people live below the poverty line. Its industries are crumbling, and pensions/social welfare have been deeply slashed. Neo-Nazi groups are on the rise, and 80% of young people are desperate to leave the country. One group estimates that one in four prostitutes in Europe are now from Ukraine.

Basically, the country is ruined and has no future. Congrats to Neocons and warmongers who keep repeating like robots, “Putin invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea.” Still bitter at Putin, the Pentagon has included $350 million of military aid to Ukraine for the coming fiscal year. More Ukrainians will keep dying for the globalist agenda.

__________________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Stop Saying, “Putin Invaded Ukraine and Annexed Crimea”

The Truth About Radical Islam

548878 Tony Cartalucci – 11-4-2017

There are approximately 1.8 billion Muslims on Earth. That is approximately 24% of the world population. They live in regions spanning North Africa, the Middle East, Central Asia, and reaching as far as Southeast Asia. There are Muslim communities in virtually every nation – and in many – they have played a pivotal, constructive, and welcomed role in national development.

If even 1% of the world’s Muslims were violent terrorists bent on conquering the world, that would constitute an army 18 million strong – or in other words – larger than the next 20 largest armies on Earth combined. Most critics of Islam infer that the number is actually much higher than 1% – many suggesting that the majority of Muslims either are engaged in or support terrorism. It is logical to conclude that if even 1% were dedicated to terrorism and the “conquest of infidels,” the war would have ended in their favor long ago.

It is clear that there is not even 1% across Islam engaged in or supporting terrorism. Across the Arab World, the vast majority of Muslims, Christians, other sects, and the secular, stand united against terrorism. It is clear that a mountain of lies stands between many and the truth – a mountain built so tall that it leaves entire segments of targeted populations in the perpetual darkness of ignorance.

From Whence Terror Flows

The source of terrorism is not the Qu’ran – a book that few critics of Islam have even picked up let alone genuinely read – but rather a very easily traced money trail that leads to Washington and London.

It is indeed the Western World that has created, branded, and marketed “radical Islam,” which is for all intents and purposes a strictly political tool designed to provoke direct Western military interventions where possible, and fight conflicts by proxy whenever direct military intervention is not possible.

In Syria and Iraq, the US has used its terrorist proxies to do both – first to fight the government of Damascus and its allies by proxy, and when that failed, to set a pretext for direct US military intervention.

It has also been used domestically, as one former analyst once put it, “to enlist our obedience for the construction of the prison planet.” Indeed, under the pretext of “fighting terrorism,” the United States and much of Europe has been transformed into an invasive police state and despite stripping away the freedom and liberty of the Western World for the promise of security – the peoples of the West find themselves with neither.

For those that have been sucked up into “radical Islam,” it seems very real. Just as the US uses patriotism to convince young men and women to devote their lives to foreign invasions, wars, and occupations against scores of sovereign nations around the world – predicated on “freedom, democracy, and self-determination” even as US militarism strips all of the above away from the planet – that fraction of a fraction of 1% engaged in “radical Islam” truly believe in their cause – no matter how nonexistent and contradictory it is in reality.

And “radical Islam” does not exist in a vacuum. It requires a medium to interact with. That includes a equally extreme, but opposite “radical ignorance” and fear sown across the Western population. Together, the two feed each other creating a perpetual pretext for foreign war, a perpetual sense of injustice against Muslims to which US-armed and funded terrorists can rally around, and perpetual fear and hatred spread across the Western World.

It is the age-old political tool of empires – divide and conquer – honed to perfection and supercharged through information technology – particularly social media.

Wahhabism – The Key to Arab Conquest 

Part of “radical ignorance” includes a deep and profound ignorance of history. Understanding the actual inception of “radical Islam,” more accurately known as Wahhabism, dispels many of the most virulent lies spread about Islam – that is has always been a barbaric, warlike ideology. Militant Islam is a relatively new phenomenon, invented by the House of Saud, then cultivated and exploited to its full potential by the British Empire and its American heirs.

The Ottoman Empire and mastery over the Arab World was coveted and contested by the British Empire. The promise of Arab independence was dangled over the heads of the founders of many of the dynasties now ruling Arabia – dynasties that were carved out through cults of personality and a violent misinterpretation of Islam known as Wahhabism. The British, after betraying the Arabs, would harness this political tool to do what all empires do best – divide and conquer – and specifically so regarding the Middle East and North Africa (MENA).

As the British Empire unraveled, the Americans picked up where London left off. The Saudis and their neighboring Persian Gulf kingdoms have been propped up by the West since the end of World War 1. Since World War 2, many of the same dynasties have sat in power, armed, funded, protected, and invited into some of the most lucrative business deals and economic activity in human history.

It was members of the Muslim Brotherhood that the US used to attempt to overthrow current Syrian President Bashar Al Assad’s father, Hafez al-Assad. It was the US with the Saudis and factions within Pakistan’s military and government who oversaw the very creation of militant groups like Al Qaeda to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan 35 years ago.

And it is to this very day still very much a US-European enterprise perpetuating the Saudi regime in Riyadh, arming it to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars in weapons and military support, and using Riyadh admittedly as an intermediary through which Washington, London, and Brussels arm and fund the worst, most virulent terrorist organizations on Earth.

Even current US President Donald Trump – who regularly cites “radical Islam” as an enduring threat to America’s national security, has signed off on immense weapon deals to the very nations the US uses to cultivate and perpetuate global terrorism.

The US and Europe Drive Terrorism, Not Islam 

Each and every terrorist attack that unfolds across North America or Europe is followed by a tidal wave of propaganda aimed at further bolstering a “clash of civilizations.” The fearful public either cowers or lashes out against Muslims – led by establishment voices including the newly christened “alt-right.”

Muslims and Islam are blamed and the same collection of elementary talking points are rolled out to fan the flames of hatred and hysteria. Points of logic including the number of Muslims on Earth versus the actual number of terrorists are never discussed.

Also never discussed is the fact that terrorists – particularly those either members of the self-titled “Islamic State” (ISIS) and Al Qaeda, or those inspired by such groups – are indoctrinated, radicalized, armed, funded, and supported by Washington, London, Brussels, and a collection of the West’s closest allies in the Middle East – namely Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Jordan, and Israel.

It was in a leaked 2012 US Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) memo that revealed the US and its allies’ intent to create what it called a “Salafist principality” in eastern Syria. The memo would explicitly state that (emphasis added):

If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in eastern Syria (Hasaka and Der Zor), and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime, which is considered the strategic depth of the Shia expansion (Iraq and Iran). 

On clarifying who these supporting powers were, the DIA memo would state:

The West, Gulf countries, and Turkey support the opposition; while Russia, China, and Iran support the regime.

The “Salafist” (Islamic) “principality” (State) would indeed be created precisely in eastern Syria as US policymakers and their allies had set out to do. It would be branded as the “Islamic State” and be used first to wage a more muscular proxy war against Damascus, and when that failed, to invite US military forces to intervene in the conflict directly.

In 2014, in an e-mail between US Counselor to the President, to John Podesta and to former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it would be admitted that two of America’s closest regional allies – Saudi Arabia and Qatar – were providing financial and logistical support to ISIS.

The e-mail, leaked to the public through Wikileaks, stated:

…we need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to [ISIS] and other radical Sunni groups in the region.

Despite admissions from the United States military and high-level politicians that ISIS was literally a creation of its own intentional foreign policy and perpetuated through state-sponsorship by America’s closest regional allies, both the administrations of President Barack Obama and President Trump would continue signing weapon deals, maintaining diplomatic ties, and strengthening military and economic cooperation with these state-sponsors of terror.

Simultaneously, the US and Europe also continue encouraging and protecting Saudi Arabia’s global network of faux-madrases – centers of indoctrination often under the watch and even co-management of Western intelligence agencies ensuring a constant, fresh supply of potential patsies for local terrorist attacks and recruits for the West’s proxy armies fighting abroad.

In other words, the problem of “radical Islam” is manufactured and perpetuated by the West. Without the money, weapons, and support provided by the US and Europe to nations like Saudi Arabia, their toxic political tools would quickly dull and be swept into the dustbin of human history. As seen in Syria itself, where hundreds of trucks per day from NATO territory are no longer able to supply ISIS positions within the country, ISIS is unable to sustain itself. It lacks genuine popular support in a region where the vast majority of Muslims, Christians, and the secular remain united against it and has no means of sustaining itself without immense and constant state sponsorship.

“Radical Islam,” or Wahhabism is no different. Both continue to exist through the intentional and malicious foreign and domestic policy of Western governments and the special interests that influence them.

Know Yourself and Know Your (Real) Enemy 

For those that believe that “radical Islam” is real and an enduring threat to “Western civilization,” they would be wise to heed the words of ancient warlord Sun Tzu who said, “know yourself, and know your enemy and you will never be defeated.”

This means identifying the true source of “radical Islam’s” power by tracing weapons, money, and leadership to their sources. For those that believe “Islam” is the fundamental problem, indulging in cherry picked Qu’ran verses is monumentally irresponsible. A true enemy must be honestly studied which means cherry-picked versus must be put into context, the Qu’ran as a whole, must be read, and deep and objective study must be undertaken to truly “know one’s enemy.”

Meeting and talking with Muslims, observing their communities, and learning their ways – if one truly believes Islam is a threat – is also fundamental in order to “know one’s enemy.”

Yet it is likely that many who blindly blame Islam do so as a spectator sport. They are disinterested in the truth because picking a side and rooting is the extent of their intellectual, physical, and moral depth. For others, it is a means of profiting. Finding a niche in the West’s massive propaganda machine and picking up crumbs for one’s bank account and ego has become a viable business model for many.

But for those with the moral integrity to do so, a genuine look into “radical Islam” will reveal a much more troubling and real enemy. One that does not menace us with a foreign culture, religion, or ideology from abroad, but one that lies right in our midst, cloaked in patriotism, humanitarianism, and all that passes for “Western civilization” today.
___________________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on The Truth About Radical Islam

Social Media: Good or Evil?

541231231211-1-2017   Vladimir Platov

In recent decades, the Internet and social networks have exerted a strong influence on the government, its institutions and individual citizens.

Today, the Internet and social networks are rapidly replacing newspapers, magazines and TV, which previously served as leading information channels. The Web is a more flexible medium with more communication channels.

The influence of social networks on the political life of states can be considered proof of the fact that recently, social networks have become the main incentive for revolutionary manifestations in several countries.

Recently, US President Donald Trump claimed that Twitter allows him to directly convey his genuine point of view to the public when his words are misrepresented. Trump added that another advantage of the social network is that it offers users an opportunity to deal with fake news.

Today, social networks know more about you than your friends and family. Facebook, Twitter, Amazon and many other large IT companies meticulously gather information about you and your so-called digital footprint. Their analyses are quite accurate and can reveal many of your secrets with only a little margin for error. This includes how much money you make, your hobbies and interests, your political and religious views, your marital status and sexual orientation. All this can easily be used against you.

It is no secret that in the last few years, large-scale surveillance of the population has been conducted in the UK. That is why the British Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) faced heavy criticism due to a possible violation of privacy laws and the fact that the abundance of data may have undermined the organization’s ability to carry out proper analysis. The human rights group Privacy International claims that it has documents, which prove that the GCHQ has been collecting information from social networks on millions of citizens for years (perhaps even decades), sharing databases with foreign intelligence and law enforcement services.

However, the main overseers of social networks are, of course, the US special services. Only the CIA monitors millions of social network users on a daily basis. Information gathering is conducted by a team of hundreds of CIA employees, known within the agency as the ‘vengeful librarians.’ They constantly analyze information from social networks in several languages to create a real-time vision of public opinion in various regions of the world and take this information into account when developing new secret CIA operations abroad.

The storage of all telephone calls and Internet correspondence of foreign citizens for the needs of US intelligence is unlimited and resides in the world’s largest data center in Bluffdale, Utah. It covers area of 100,000 square meters and so far, 2 billion dollars have been spent on its development.

Besides the CIA, the US Defense Department also carries out significant work on social network monitoring, in particular through the Advanced Media in Strategic Communication program of Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which develops special software tools and means for monitoring social media and altering user behavior. In particular, DARPA regularly conducts research to identify persuasion campaign structures, combats influence operations of potential enemies in social networks. The technical goals of DARPA programs involve the development of automated or semi-automated software tools and means for the systematic acquisition and analysis of information from social networks. With their help, it is possible to identify, itemize and track the emergence and the dissemination of ideas and concepts, targeted and misleading misinformation messages. It also helps to expose the organizers of propaganda campaigns, to identify participants and their intentions, to develop and implement measures to counteract the opponents’ influence operations. The programs developed by DARPA also allow the automated generation of content on social networks using the so-called fake accounts (also known as sock puppets or bots) to conceal genuine information about individuals who promote ‘special’ points of view and, through the creation of false propaganda sites, distract social network users who possess oppositional sentiments.

It was with the direct involvement of DARPA in recent months that the Anti-Russian campaign concerning the ‘Russian threat’ and Russia’s alleged influence on the US elections and those of other Western countries has been promoted in the US and then worldwide. The primary goal was hindering the growth of the Kremlin’s global authority and its successful participation in resolving international conflicts.

But not only national security services carefully spy on us through social networks. The American credit reporting agency Equifax found a brilliant way to collect personal data on crediting. This was done, of course, without the permission of the citizens themselves, and the information was then sold to companies that wish to lend people money. Therefore, hackers were able to steal social security numbers and other personal information about 146 million American citizens (almost half of the US population).

And this is unlikely to be the case with just Equifax.

WikiLeaks revealed that not only social networks, but also our smartphones and TVs spy on us for the Americans. And now, to enter the US territory, people have to disclose their social media accounts.

Therefore, it is hardly surprising that the founder of the French search engine INNOO, Luc Rubiello, spoke against the omnipresence of international Internet corporations in France. According to him, they are instruments of the US soft power and present a threat to the independence of other countries.

One can say that they have nothing to hide and that for them, the access to the personal data of their relatives is more important, or that they do not care whether or not foreigners have access to the information. But they forget that it is very difficult to rebuild one’s personal life after it has been invaded. Additionally, a future employer may have a completely different point of view on the matter and the decision to recruit an employee after a detailed acquaintance with their personal life and activities on social networks may well be negative.

One of the founding father of the Internet, Louis Pouzin, gave a very accurate description of the current situation, saying, “The United States already controls all Internet mechanisms and offers its services worldwide.”

According to Michael Sandel, a Harvard political philosophy professor, “One hundred years ago, we found an opportunity to curb the unaccountable governments and staggering power of the industrial revolution. Today, we need to decide how to restrain the power of the digital revolution, which answers to no one.”
_____________________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Social Media: Good or Evil?

North Korea Wants Nuke Deterrence

Exclusive: The revelation that North Korea hacked into South Korea’s military secrets and found U.S. plans for a preemptive “decapitation” of Pyongyang’s leadership explains its rush to build a nuclear deterrent, says Nicolas J S Davies.

By Nicolas J S Davies – Consortiumnews.com

The Western media has been awash in speculation as to why, about a year ago, North Korea’s “crazy” leadership suddenly launched a crash program to vastly improve its ballistic missile capabilities. That question has now been answered.

In September 2016, North Korean cyber-defense forces hacked into South Korean military computers and downloaded 235 gigabytes of documents. The BBC has revealed that the documents included detailed U.S. plans to assassinate North Korea’s president, Kim Jong Un, and launch an all-out war on North Korea. The BBC’s main source for this story is Rhee Cheol-Hee, a member of the Defense Committee of the South Korean National Assembly.

These plans for aggressive war have actually been long in the making. In 2003, the U.S. scrapped an agreement signed in 1994 under which North Korea suspended its nuclear program and the U.S. agreed to build two light water reactors in North Korea. The two countries also agreed to a step-by-step normalization of relations. Even after the U.S. scrapped the 1994 Agreed Framework in 2003, North Korea did not restart work on the two reactors frozen under that agreement, which could by now be producing enough plutonium to make several nuclear weapons every year.

However, since 2002-03, when President George W. Bush included North Korea in his “axis of evil,” withdrew from the Agreed Framework, and launched an invasion of Iraq over bogus WMD claims, North Korea once again began enriching uranium and making steady progress toward developing nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles to deliver them.

By 2016, the North Koreans also were keenly aware of the horrific fate of Iraq and Libya and their leaders after the countries did surrender their unconventional weapons. Not only did the U.S. lead bloody “regime change” invasions but the nations’ leaders were brutally murdered, Saddam Hussein by hanging and Muammar Gaddafi sodomized with a knife and then summarily shot in the head.

So, the discovery of the U.S. war plan in 2016 sounded alarm bells in Pyongyang and triggered an unprecedented crash program to quickly expand North Korea’s ballistic missile program. Its nuclear weapons tests established that it can produce a small number of first-generation nuclear weapons, but it needed a viable delivery system before it could be sure that its nuclear deterrent would be credible enough to deter a U.S. attack.

In other words, North Korea’s main goal has been to close the gap between its existing delivery systems and the missile technology it would need to actually launch a retaliatory nuclear strike against the United States. North Korea’s leaders see this as their only chance to escape the same kind of mass destruction visited on North Korea in the first Korean War, when U.S.-led air forces destroyed every city, town and industrial area and General Curtis LeMay boasted that the attacks had killed 20 percent of the population.

Through 2015 and early 2016, North Korea only tested one new missile, the Pukkuksong-1 submarine-launched missile. The missile launched from a submerged submarine and flew 300 miles on its final, successful test, which coincided with the annual U.S.-South Korean military exercises in August 2016.

North Korea also launched its largest satellite to date in February 2016, but the launch vehicle seemed to be the same type as the Unha-3 used to launch a smaller satellite in 2012.

However, since the discovery of the U.S.-South Korean war plans a year ago, North Korea has vastly accelerated its missile development program, conducting at least 27 more tests of a wide range of new missiles and bringing it much closer to a credible nuclear deterrent. Here is a timeline of the tests:

–Two failed tests of Hwasong-10 medium-range ballistic missiles in October 2016.

–Two successful tests of Pukguksong-2 medium-range ballistic missiles, in February and May 2017. The missiles followed identical trajectories, rising to a height of 340 miles and landing in the sea 300 miles away. South Korean analysts believe this missile’s full range is at least 2,000 miles, and North Korea said the tests confirmed it is ready for mass production.

–Four medium-range ballistic missiles that flew an average of 620 miles from the Tongchang-ri space center in March 2017.

–Two apparently failed missile tests from Sinpo submarine base in April 2017.

–Six tests of Hwasong-12 medium-range ballistic missiles (range: 2,300 to 3,700 miles) since April 2017.

–A failed test of a missile believed to be a “KN-17” from Pukchang airbase in April 2017.

–Test of a Scud-type anti-ship missile that flew 300 miles and landed in the Sea of Japan, and two other tests in May 2017.

–Several cruise missiles fired from the East coast in June 2017.

–A test of a powerful new rocket engine, maybe for an ICBM, in June 2017.

–North Korea tested two Hwasong-14 “near-ICBMs” in July 2017. Based on these tests, the Hwasong-14 may be capable of hitting city-sized targets in Alaska or Hawaii with a single nuclear warhead, but cannot yet reach the U.S. West Coast.

–Four more missiles tested in August 2017, including a Hwasong-12 that flew over Japan and travelled 1,700 miles before breaking up, maybe as a result of a failure in a “Post Boost Vehicle” added to improve range and accuracy.

–Another ballistic missile flew 2,300 miles over the Pacific on September 15, 2017.

An analysis of the two tests of the Hwasong-14 in July by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) concluded that these missiles are not yet capable of carrying a 500 kg payload as far as Seattle or other U.S. West Coast cities. BAS notes that a first generation nuclear weapon based on the Pakistani model that North Korea is believed to be following could not weigh less than 500 kg, once the weight of the warhead casing and a heat shield to survive reentry into the Earth’s atmosphere are taken into account.

Global Reaction

Awareness of the role of the U.S. war plan in spurring the dramatic escalation of North Korea’s missile program should be a game changer in the world’s response to the crisis over Korea, since it demonstrates that the current acceleration of the North Korean missile program is a defensive response to a serious and potentially existential threat from the United States.

If the United Nations Security Council was not diplomatically and militarily intimidated by the United States, this knowledge should trigger urgent action in the Security Council to require all sides to make a firm commitment to peaceful and binding diplomacy to formally end the Korean War and remove the threat of war from all the people of Korea. And the whole world would unite politically and diplomatically to prevent the U.S. from using its veto to avoid accountability for its leading role in this crisis. Only a unified global response to potential U.S. aggression could possibly convince North Korea that it would have some protection if it eventually halted its nuclear weapons program.

But such unity in the face of a threat of U.S. aggression would be unprecedented. Most U.N. delegates quietly sat and listened on Sept. 19 when President Donald Trump delivered explicit threats of war and aggression against North Korea, Iran and Venezuela, while boasting about his missile strike against Syria on April 6 over dubious and disputed claims about a chemical weapons incident.

For the past 20 years or more, the United States has swaggered about as the “last remaining superpower” and the “indispensable nation,” a global law unto itself, using the dangers of terrorism and weapons proliferation and highly selective outrage over “dictators” as propaganda narratives to justify illegal wars, CIA-backed terrorism, its own weapons proliferation, and support for its favored dictators like the brutal rulers of Saudi Arabia and other Arab monarchies.

For even longer, the United States has been two-faced about international law, citing it when some adversary can be accused of a violation but ignoring it when the U.S. or its allies are trampling on the rights of some disfavored country. When the International Court of Justice convicted the United States of aggression (including acts of terrorism) against Nicaragua in 1986, the U.S. withdrew from the ICJ’s binding jurisdiction.

Since then, the U.S. has thumbed its nose at the entire structure of international law, confident in the political power of its propaganda or “information warfare” to cast itself as the guardian of law and order in the world, even as it systematically violates the most basic rules spelled out in the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions.

U.S. propaganda treats the U.N. Charter and the Geneva Conventions, the world’s “Never again” to war, torture and the killing of millions of civilians in the Second World War, as relics of another time that it would be naive to take seriously.

But the results of the U.S. alternative — its lawless “might makes right” war policy — are now plain for all to see. In the past 16 years, America’s post-9/11 wars have already killed at least two million people, maybe many more, with no end in sight to the slaughter as the U.S.’s policy of illegal war keeps plunging country after country into intractable violence and chaos.

An Ally’s Fears

Just as North Korea’s missile programs are a rational defense strategy in the face of the threat Pyongyang faces from the U.S., the exposure of the U.S.’s war plan by American allies in South Korea is also a rational act of self-preservation, since they too are threatened by the possibility of war on the Korean peninsula.

Now maybe other U.S. allies, the wealthy countries that have provided political and diplomatic cover for the U.S.’s 20-year campaign of illegal war, will finally reassert their humanity, their sovereignty and their own obligations under international law, and start to rethink their roles as junior partners in U.S. aggression.

Countries like the U.K., France and Australia will sooner or later have to choose between forward-looking roles in a sustainable, peaceful multi-polar world and a slavish loyalty to the ever-more desperate death throes of U.S. hegemony. Now might be a good moment to make that choice, before they are dragged into new U.S. wars in Korea, Iran or Venezuela.

Even Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tennessee, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, is afraid that Donald Trump will lead humanity into World War III. But it might come as a surprise to people in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Libya and parts of a dozen other countries already engulfed by U.S.-driven wars to learn that they are not already in the midst of World War III.

Perhaps what really worries the Senator is that he and his colleagues may no longer be able to sweep these endless atrocities under the plush carpets of the halls of Congress without a genteel Barack Obama in the White House to sweet-talk U.S. allies around the world and keep the millions being killed in U.S. wars off U.S. TVs and computer screens, out of sight and out of mind.

If politicians in the U.S. and around the world need the ugliness of Donald Trump as a mirror for their own greed, ignorance and temerity, to shame them into changing their ways, so be it – whatever it takes. But it should not escape anyone anywhere that the signature on this diabolical war plan that now threatens to kill millions of Koreans was not Donald Trump’s but Barack Obama’s.

George Orwell might well have been describing the partisan blindness of the West’s self-satisfied, so easily deluded, neoliberal society when he wrote this in 1945,

“Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits, but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage – torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians – which does not change its color when it is committed by our side… The Nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

Here’s the bottom line: The United States has been planning to assassinate Kim Jong Un and to launch an all-out war on North Korea. There. You’ve heard it. Now, can you still be manipulated into believing that Kim Jong Un is simply “crazy” and North Korea is the gravest threat to world peace?

Or do you now understand that the United States is the real threat to peace in Korea, just as it was in Iraq, Libya and many other countries where the leaders were deemed “crazy” and U.S. officials (and the Western mainstream media) promoted war as the only “rational” alternative?

_____________________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on North Korea Wants Nuke Deterrence

The US Government Likes War

Paul Craig Roberts – 10-15-17

I have warned of the consequences of Washington threatening Russia’s security by breaking agreement after agreement, by placing missile bases on Russia’s borders, by orchestrating anti-Russian coups in former Soviet provinces, and by a continuing volley of false accusations against Russia. There is no act more reckless and irresponsible than to make one nuclear power fear nuclear attack from another.

Alert observers have become aware of the mounting danger. Canadian professor Michel Chossudovsky writes that Washington has taken nuclear war from a hypothetical scenario to a real danger that threatens the future of humanity. https://www.globalresearch.ca/towards-a-world-war-iii-scenario-breaking-the-big-lie/5348384

Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader who worked with President Ronald Reagan to end the Cold War and the threat of nuclear Armageddon, has appealed to President Trump and President Putin to hold a summit meeting and bring an end to the rising tensions. Gorbachev wrote in the Washington Post that “it is far from normal that the presidents of major nuclear powers meet merely on the margins of international gatherings.” This is especially the case as “relations between the two nations are in a severe crisis.” http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/48004.htm

Gorbachev’s warning could be an understatement. Last March, General Viktor Poznikhir, the deputy commander of the Russian military’s Operation Command expressed concern that Washington could be preparing a surprise nuclear attack on Russia. See https://dninews.com/article/moscow-us-missile-systems-europe-may-lead-sudden-nuclear-attack-russia and http://www.newsweek.com/russia-us-global-missile-defense-lead-nuclear-war-europe-591244 and https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-officials-u-global-missile-192829855.html

Had any such statement from the Russian high command been issued anytime during the 20th century Cold War era, the President of the United States would have immediately contacted the Soviet leader and given every assurance that no such plan or intentions toward Russia existed. As far as I can tell, the Trump White House let this ominous announcement pass unremarked. If this is the case, it must have provided confirmation to the Russians’ conclusion.

For some time I have pointed out that the entirety of the West, both the US and its vassal states, continue to ignore very clear Russian warnings. Gilbert Doctorow has made the same point. https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/10/10/deaf-ear-dire-russian-warnings.html

Perhaps the most clear of all was Putin’s public statement that “Russia will never again fight a war on its own territory.” If Washington’s EU vassals did not hear this clear warning that they are courting their nuclear destruction—especially the Poles and Romanians who have mindlessly hosted US missile bases—they are as deaf as they are stupid.

One Russian official told the idiot British government to its face that if the British threat to first use nuclear weapons is directed at Russia, if such an attempt is made, Great Britain will disappear from the face of the earth.

There is no doubt that that would be the case.

So why do Washington’s impotent vassals talk tough to Russia, a government that only desires peace and has threatened Britain in no way. Nor has the Russian government threatened France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Greece, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, or any of the former Eastern European vassals of the Soviet Union that exchanged their captivity to the Soviet Union for captivity to Washington. Russia has not even threatened Ukraine, which Russia could wipe out in a couple of minutes. Why are all of these countries, apparently led by mindless, gutless two-bit politicians, aligned with Washington’s false propaganda against Russia?

The answer is money. The vassals are paid to go along with the lies. As Alain of Lille said as long ago as the 12th century, “not God, not Caesar, but money is all.”

What are the forces driving Washington’s provocation of Russia? There are three, and they comprise a vast conspiracy against life on earth.

One is the Neoconservatives. The Neoconservatives were convinced by the Soviet Collapse that History has chosen not the proletariat but American “democratic capitalism” as the socio-politico-economic system for the world, and that this choice by History conveys on America the status of the “indispensable, exceptional” country, a status that places America above all other countries and above international law and, indeed, America’s own laws.

America is so exceptional that it can torture people in total violation of both US law and international law. The government in Washington can, on suspicion alone without presentation to a court of evidence and conviction, confine US citizens indefinitely, torturing them the entire time, and can assassinate them at will without due process of law. This is the definition of a total police state tyranny. Yet Washington represents America as a “great democracy,” whose endless wars against humanity are “bringing democracy to the world.”

America is so exceptional that it can bomb other countries indiscriminately without officially being at war with those countries.

America is so exceptional that the separation of powers prescribed in the American Constitution can be totally ignored by the executive branch as, the Neoconservatives claim, the President has “unique powers” not limited by the Constitution, which, of course, is just another lie.

Russia, China, and Iran are targets of the Neoconservatives, as were Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, and provinces of Pakistan, because these countries have/had independent foreign policies and are/were not Washington’s vassals.

The Neoconservative doctrine states that it is the “principal goal” of US foreign policy “to prevent the rise of Russia or any other state” that can serve as a constraint on Washington’s unilateralism.

The New York Times under this headline on March 8, 1992, explains the Wolfowitz doctrine:

U.S. Strategy Plan Calls for Insuring No Rivals Develop
A One-Superpower World
http://work.colum.edu/~amiller/wolfowitz1992.htm

Special to The New York Times

WASHINGTON, March 7 In a broad new policy statement that is in its final drafting phase, the Defense Department asserts that America’s political and military mission in the post-cold-war era will be to ensure that no rival superpower is allowed to emerge in Western Europe, Asia or the territories of the former Soviet Union.

A 46-page document that has been circulating at the highest levels of the Pentagon for weeks, and which Defense Secretary Dick Cheney expects to release later this month, states that part of the American mission will be convincing potential competitors that they need not aspire to a greater role or pursue a more aggressive posture to protect their legitimate interests.

The classified document makes the case for a world dominated by one superpower whose position can be perpetuated by constructive behavior and sufficient military might to deter any nation or group of nations from challenging American primacy.

Every state with an independent foreign policy is a constraint on Washington, especially states with nuclear capabilities such as Russia and China.

A second interest with incentive to provoke Russia is the US military/security complex. President Eisenhower, a five-star general, warned Americans in 1961 that the “military-industrial complex” was a threat to American democracy. Today the military/security complex is much more than a mere threat to American democracy. It has already taken over the US government and the Trump administration, which is run by generals, and it now threatens all life on earth.

The military/security complex has an annual budget of one thousand billion dollars. This sum is larger than the Gross Domestic Products of all but a handful of countries on earth. Such an immense budget conveying such power desperately needs a dangerous enemy for its justification. Russia has been assigned this role. Given the power of the military/security complex, the role assigned to Russia cannot be mitigated by Russian diplomacy. Moreover, the interests of the military/security complex and the Neoconservatives are in agreement.

The third powerful interest group leading to conflict with Russia is the Israel Lobby. In Washington the Israel Lobby is extremely powerful. If the Israel Lobby puts legislation or a resolution before Congress, it usually passes almost unanimously, as anyone who votes against it is likely to be eliminated in the next election.

The Israel Lobby is closely linked to the Neoconservatives, the principal figures of which are Zionist Jews tightly allied with Israel. Some are joint US/Israeli citizens. The Israeli influence in Washington is so strong that the Vice Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Bank is the former chairman of the Israeli Central Bank. Israel is so powerful in Washington that it even runs US economic policy.

The Zionists in Israel want to expand. Their doctrine is “from the Nile to the Euphrates.” That is the Zionist claim of the land that God gave to the Chosen People.

In pursuit of this goal, Israel twice sent the Israeli Army into southern Lebanon to occupy that part of the country in order to seize the Litani River, water resources that Israel desires.

However, twice the Hezbollah militia drove out the vaunted Israeli Army. Israel now fears to send the army again. Instead, Israel is using its power over the government in Washington to use the US military to put Syria and Iran in the same chaos as exists in Libya and Iraq. The reason is that Syria and Iran are the supporters of the Hezbollah militia. Deprived of support, Hezbollah can be defeated by Israel.

It is Israel, not the US government per se, that is driving the US to war with Iran. Israel, which almost always gets its way in Washington, is encountering difficulties. Washington’s EU vassals are opposed to renewing conflict with Iran. Europe is overwhelmed with problems, many of which stem from Washington’s wars, and doesn’t need the Iranian one again. Neither does the US military, defeated in Syria and unable to win in Afghanistan after 16 years against a few thousand lightly armed Taliban. Washington’s defeat in Afghanistan on top of the defeat in Vietnam has destroyed any fear of Washington’s conventional forces, which is why Russia and China expect the next war to be nuclear.

Moreover, if Russia will not tolerate Washington’s overthrow of Syria, Russia certainly will not tolerate Washington’s overthrow of Iran. And it is unlikely that China will either as, according to reports, China gets 20% of its oil from Iran. Indeed, the Russian and Chinese interest in Iran is so strong that it is inexplicable that the Israel Lobby thinks it is so strong that it can drive Washington into war with Iran. The hubris and arrogance (and insanity) of the Neoconservatives and the Israel Lobby are the greatest the world has seen.

________________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on The US Government Likes War

America’s Institutional Stupidity, More than Trump

 
10-3-2017   Gordon Duff

We are going to talk about a number of things today but we begin with a story. The story is important because there is little reason to find “orchestrated national stupidity” as a global threat without example.

Currently American backed Kurdish forces are sweeping across Arab lands in Syria, moving toward the oil fields of Deir Ezzor. They are pushing aside ISIS with no evidence of combat what so ever, in fact ISIS seems to be aiding them.

Simultaneously, some organization, and we will get into this in a bit, is evacuating ISIS leaders and their families by helicopter, taking them to safety.

Simultaneously, Kurds in Iraq have held a referendum, which, after careful analysis, is intended to take over Arab held oil fields around Kirkuk, the largest in the world. President Erdogan of Turkey says this referendum, not a simple plebiscite at all but something far more sinister, is being staged by the Israeli intelligence agency known as the Mossad.

Over the past few months, we have noted that the Kurds in Iraq haven’t fought ISIS at all. In fact, when ISIS was running 12,000 truck convoys, one of the largest scale oil thefts in history, and there have been many, the ISIS trucks regularly drove through the Kurdish capitol of Erbil, even though the Kurds claimed to be at war with ISIS.

One might well assume from this that those that control the Kurds and ISIS are one in the same, warring on Iraq, on Syria, on Lebanon, on Iran and threatening Turkey. One might wonder the “who and why” of such actions, actions regularly documented but never reported, dots unconnected, actions “un-observed.”

There are a dozen wars going on today, none are real, all are orchestrated by intelligence agencies and their partners, oil, banking, the arms industry, all backed by the puppets of the American and British governments, by Tel Aviv, by the graduates of Annapolis and West Point who run the Pentagon and their NATO counterparts.

No real discernment is required to come to these conclusions, they are clear as day, in a real world at least but we no long live in a real world. We live in a world where controlling public opinion is nothing. It isn’t just the “fake news” but rather the internet itself, yes, the news, our schools, our economic lives, the credit bureaus, our banks, everything we touch with our lives from health care to the price we pay for food.

The world is run by corporations, not just those who brought us into World Wars during the 20th century but newer and more threatening ones, leading among this Google and “Google Jigsaw,” the regime change factory tied to sarin gas attacks in Syria and assassinations across the Middle East. Never hear of it? Don’t be surprised, it is Google Corporation that controls what is fact and what is lie, it is to be expected they would want a seat at the table and hire a mercenary army, originally under Google Idea Groups and former White House war planner Jared Cohen.

Now that we’ve said this, let’s do some background and take a look at how we got here.

America is stupid, not just the silly tweets by Trump. His clowning over issues of disaster relief or football player protests that eat up news cycles have their own brilliance. While the media follows Trump’s feigned ineptitude, America is quickly being transformed into a corporate police state with a population under increasing levels of surveillance and fed a daily dose of “stupid food,” distractions intended to help the transition to full control seem natural.

The idea of corporate rule isn’t anything new. It began with the “robber barons” of the 19th century or perhaps earlier with the Federalists and their open love affair with British/Rothschild rule through the foreign controlled currency scam few Americans are aware of, known as the Federal Reserve.

Not to burden with a real history lesson but a key issue of America’s founding fathers was to keep the foreign banks that they believed orchestrated Europe’s continual wars out of America.

After over a century of political conflict President Wilson, guided by European advisers brought a central bank into the US, beginning the slide into debt slavery and America’s role as “policeman of the world.” The year was 1913 and any politician speaking of returning to a system of constitutional “legal tender” is destroyed or murdered. John Kennedy was one such politician.

This is what is behind everything, the real story, the real controversy, 20 trillion dollars of phony debt to largely European banks, banks “largely” controlled by the Rothschild’s family, a criminal arrangement never addressed except in the shadowy Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, a document of obscure origins that blames it all on “the Jews.”

Today Americans blame Muslims or African Americans or anyone with brown skin. Today around 60% of America’s are “white” and “non-Hispanic,” a group that represents “stupid central,” always ready to point a finger of blame, always ready to sell their souls for “safety” or “order,” even if the threat itself is manufactured.

Addressing this issue, more historical context, is going to be painful. One of the greatest threats stupidity represents is that the obvious can always be hidden. So, here it is. A cabal of security agencies, led initially by Britain during the 19th century, began what was called “the great game.” These agencies, the CIA, MI6, Mossad, all of them, work in concert partnered with banks, the defense industry, oil and the tech giants, particularly Google and Facebook, to stage events, create and support terror groups, rig elections and control not only the news that has always been fake but the universities themselves.

Tiresome references to Kafka or to Orwell now represent not just understatement but a failure of those in the past to predict the dangers of technology and perhaps even reverse human evolution, that mankind may well be returning to life in the caves.

It isn’t just news that’s fake but history, economics and even, to an extent, science itself. How do you think Tesla was erased from history for so many decades? When scientists talk about obtaining power from Tesla’s “aether,” they are quickly discredited.

What if war was a business run by gangsters, yes, we mean corporations, security agencies and controlled governments as claimed. From the 1935 book by retired Marine General Smedley Butler:

“WAR is a racket. It always has been.

It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.

How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?

Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few — the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.

And what is this bill?

This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.

For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.”

What Butler, a once famous America hero, says here is more true today than ever before but no university teaches this, he is unknown, unremembered and his words considered treason. Were he alive today, he would be attacked in the press, bombarded with White House “tweets” or simply die in a car accident, always never to be investigated, employing an oft used CIA procedure known as “Boston Brakes.” It is rumored that the CIA kills journalists, politicians, anyone who gets in the way by staging incidents such as car crashes where “first responders,” carefully placed phony emergency medical personnel, execute targets whose cars are run off the road. Mind you, this is simply conspiracy theory, or is it? George Patton, Michael Hastings, or with variation, Roland Carnaby, Antonio Scalia, Vince Foster, Paul Wellstone somewhat forgotten names, a few of not dozens but hundreds or thousands, the veritable armies of the “accidented and suicided.”

We can pull out the key quotes so easily, let’s begin with Lincoln:

“You can fool all the people some of the time, and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time.”

Now we move to Lenin:

“The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves.”

Thus, we awaken each morning in a world where we can only remain free or safe by walling ourselves off from the media, engaging in no discussions with others, assuming everyone is controlled, assuming all information is propaganda, assuming, with some certainty, that a dark future is inevitable.

After all, why would those with so much power drench us continually with endless and increasingly absurd lies, a narrative of economic voodoo, of phony wars, of false flag terrorism, of fear and hate unless they, whoever “they” is, had something nasty in mind.

There is a “they.”

___________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on America’s Institutional Stupidity, More than Trump

North Korea is US stage-managed geopolitical theater to counter China

North Korea is US stage-managed geopolitical theater to counter China - analyst

The whole Pacific Rim agenda is predicated on poor relations with North Korea and being on a war footing. Patrick Henningsen, geopolitical analyst, says the only reason the US is there is to counter China, while North Korea is just theater.

The US flew B-1B Lancer bombers, escorted by F-15 fighters, off North Korea’s east coast. However, the aircraft remained in international airspace.

In a statement, the Pentagon said the mission was designed to demonstrate “US resolve and [sends] a clear message that the President has many military options to defeat any threat.”

Photo published for U.S. Bombers, Fighters Fly in International Airspace East of North Kor

U.S. Bombers, Fighters Fly in International Airspace East of North Korea

Earlier today, U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bombers from Guam, along with U.S. Air Force F-15C Eagle fighter escorts from Okinawa, Japan, flew in international airspace over waters east of North Korea.

RT discussed this situation with geopolitical analyst and founder of the news website 21st Century Wire Patrick Henningsen.

RT: What message is Washington sending with this bomber deployment?

Patrick Henningsen: They are sending a message of aggression and war. It is certainly the message that Trump’s base, some of them anyway, want to hear. It is the message that the military-industrial complex in the US and all its defense contractors want to hear. It is John McCain’s message, it is James Mattis’ message. This is the message of neoconservative war hawks. That is basically who he is talking to.

© Reuters

In terms of diplomacy, it is completely counterproductive. In terms of China relations, it is very poor form. In terms of military strategy, it is worthless – it is nothing. The other thing is, Obama would have done the same thing. In fact, Obama did exactly the same thing in September, 2016 – he flew a B-1 bomber over South Korea not very far at all, technically from where this was flown today. Of course, it didn’t get any media coverage at the time. But this is just basic US behavior, a government that is dominated by the Pentagon, by the defense industry, by these interests.

RT: Is it a sensible move given how high tensions are at the moment?

PH: The US is the problem in this. South Korea and North Korea have tried different times to initiate some kind of meaningful peace process. And almost at every turn, the US intervenes in one way or another to try to break up that sort of bilateral negotiations between the North and the South. The US has a demilitarized zone between North and South Korea with 30,000 troops and military contractors and civilian personnel based there. They have bases in Okinawa, in Japan, in Guam, and a few on the Philippines. From the Korean point of view, the problem is the US. I am sure North and South Korea could eventually work this out to have a peace treaty. But that is not what is happening now. The US is intervening for one simple fact: because the whole Pacific Rim agenda is predicated on poor relations with North Korea and war footing. Otherwise, the US would have no business in the Pacific and the only reason they are there is to counter China. So, North Korea is just theater. This is stage-managed geopolitical theater. It is very dangerous what the US is doing right now, what this president is doing right now, pushing the envelope in a very negative way.

RT: How might Pyongyang react to a provocation like this?

PH: If you were a North Korean who listened to the words of Donald Trump at the UNGA, wouldn’t you want a nuclear deterrent as well? Trump is threatening to destroy a country with 25 million people. And it is an idiotic statement by the US president for the simple reason, if you nuked North Korea, you would also create huge damage and consequences to people in South Korea. It would make huge damages in China. It is not going to happen. Everyone knows the US is not going to nuke North Korea. What you have here is a replay of the US relations with Cuba. The US government, though its ridiculous policies and rhetoric, threatening, sanctions and embargos, encouraged Cubans to keep Fidel Castro in power for years. They are doing the same thing now in North Korea. This is like a replay of Cuba. The US made Fidel Castro who he was, made the conditions that kept him in power. It is like a replay of history. It doesn’t make sense on so many levels, but this is sort of business as usual for Washington and unfortunately history will not be on the side of the US in this, because at some point, it has to end. They’ve been there 70 years. They’ve carved out a strip between North Korea and South Korea, which is basically a giant dollar sink for US dollars, for the military-industrial complex. There is no reason for the US to be there and there is no reason for North and South Korea to be pointing guns at each other. The only reason they are is because of the US.

It’s all about money at the end of the day. It’s about a defense budget that has been increased 20 percent to 700 billion dollars; the increase percentage alone is more than the entire annual Russian defense budget … this is about money, this is about profit.

___________________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on North Korea is US stage-managed geopolitical theater to counter China

Washington Has Initiated Military Conflict With Russia

Paul Craig Roberts

Russia has provided evidence that Washington is collaborating with ISIS in attacks on Russian forces. http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/breaking-russia-presents-satellite-proof-us-troops-collaborating-isis-syria/ri21030

In one Washington-directed attack, ISIS tried to capture 29 Russian military policemen. However, Russian special forces entered the fray, and the result was spectacular losses for ISIS. http://russia-insider.com/en/military/us-secret-services-tried-nab-29-russian-troops-syria-and-got-their-butts-kicked-russian

In another attack Washington-directed attack, Russian General Valery Asapov and two Russian colonels were killed in an attack that violated agreements. http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/09/syria-us-centcom-declares-war-on-russia.html#more

Sooner or later it will dawn on the Russian government that Washington is not a rational government with which diplomacy can be practiced, peace pursued, and agreements reached. Sooner or later it will dawn on the Russian government that far from being rational, Washington is a criminally insane collection of psychopaths in thrall to the military/security complex which, in turn, is in thrall to its massive profits.

In other words, for the powerful interest groups that control the US government, war is a profit center. No amount of Russian diplomacy can do anything about this fact.

It is unfortunate that the Russian government did not realize what it was dealing with. If the Russian government had not projected its own rationality on Washington, the war in Syria would have been over a couple of years ago. Instead, hoping for a settlement, the Russians were stop-go/stop-go, which gave Washington time to recover from the shock of Russian intervention and put in place plans to partition Syria in order to keep the conflict alive forever. Having dallied in hopes of a settlement, the danger of which The Saker warns us is real. http://thesaker.is/very-dangerous-escalation-in-syria/

With the public in its pocket, the military/security complex will increase its reckless provocations of Russia.

___________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Washington Has Initiated Military Conflict With Russia

US Secretly Pushing Toward War With Iran

4523423423

The Iran “Nuclear Deal” Leads to War, Not Peace

by Tony Cartalucci – 9-24-2017

The so-called Iran “nuclear deal,” officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was hailed as “historic” when the United States among other nations became a signatory of it. Then US President Barack Obama, attempted to make convincing statements regarding America’s commitment to the deal.

However, America’s rhetoric compared to its actual actions diplomatically, militarily, and geopolitically told two different stories.

US Was Waging Proxy War with Iran when the Deal was Signed

The deal was created in 2015, 4 full years since the United States engineered a destructive proxy war in Syria – one of Iran’s closest and most crucial regional allies. By 2015, the United States had already committed to direct military intervention in Syria, occupying Syrian territory, directly arming, funding, and providing air support for militants seizing Syrian territory, and even constructing military bases within Syria’s borders.

By 2015, the United States was revealed to have poured billions of dollars into arming militants ranging from Kurdish groups in Syria’s northeast, to militants aligned to Al Qaeda and even the so-called “Islamic State” (ISIS) in northern and southern Syria.

While US President Barack Obama posed as conciliatory toward Iran, the US was steeped deeply in not only a proxy war against Syria, but ultimately a proxy war aimed directly at Iran.

According to years of US policy papers, dismantling Iran’s allies in Syria and Lebanon were crucial prerequisites toward eventually undermining and overthrowing the government and political order in Iran itself.

Betraying the “Nuclear Deal” is Stated US Policy 

Signing an agreement posing as rapprochement while simultaneously waging proxy war against a principle party of the agreement already indicates  US intentions regarding Iran and America’s commitment to honoring the agreement.

Beyond US policymakers openly conspiring to weaken or altogether dismantle Iran’s regional allies before setting upon Iran directly, years before the JCPOA was signed, US policymakers pledged to propose then intentionally betray a “superb offer” to help portray Iran rather than the United States as both an irrational threat to global security and a nation bent on acquiring nuclear weapons for the “wrong reasons.”

The 2009 Brookings Institution report “Which Path to Persia?” would explicitly describe this ploy, stating:

...any military operation against Iran will likely be very unpopular around the world and require the proper international context—both to ensure the logistical support the operation would require and to minimize the blowback from it. The best way to minimize international opprobrium and maximize support (however, grudging or covert) is to strike only when there is a widespread conviction that the Iranians were given but then rejected a superb offer—one so good that only a regime determined to acquire nuclear weapons and acquire them for the wrong reasons would turn it down. Under those circumstances, the United States (or Israel) could portray its operations as taken in sorrow, not anger, and at least some in the international community would conclude that the Iranians “brought it on themselves” by refusing a very good deal.

Shortly before US President Barack Obama ended his second term in office, preparations were already underway to backtrack on the Iran deal. With US President Donald Trump now presiding over US foreign policy, the US is preparing to either entirely withdraw from the deal, or rewrite its conditions in such a fashion that Iran will be unable to accept it.

As the End Game Approaches in Syria 

While regime change and the total division and destruction of Syria would have been ideal for US policymakers who then seek to wage war upon Iran, Syria and its allies have paid a significant price in personnel and materiel.

Despite this, Syrian forces have retaken virtually all significant population centers across the nation, including Syria’s largest city Aleppo where reconstruction is already beginning. Syrian forces have also crossed and are currently establishing a stronghold east of the Euphrates River, further complicating the partitioning of Syrian territory as envisioned by US policymakers and their Kurdish and Arab proxies.

With Russian and Iranian forces deeply dug in on the ground in Syria, the likelihood of the US and its partners making any further headway against Syria is unlikely and faces a “now or never” moment in regards to pivoting the conflict and its regional resources toward Iran. Reconstruction in Syria and the loosening of sanctions versus Iran will only further impede possible future operations against Iran.

US Forfeits Illusion of Independent Israeli Foreign Policy 

Signaling increasing signs of desperation and aggression, the US has opened its first official military base in what has for all intents and purposes been for decades a “forward operating base” for Wall Street and Washington in the Middle East – Israel.

The Times of Israel in an article titled, “In first, US establishes permanent military base in Israel,” would note:

For the first time in history, the United States on Monday established an official, permanent military base in Israel: an air defense base in the heart of the Negev desert.

Dozens of US Air Force soldiers will call home the new base, located inside the Israeli Air Force’s Mashabim Air Base, west of the towns of Dimona and Yerucham. 

Brig. Gen. Tzvika Haimovitch, head of the IAF’s Aerial Defense Command, announced the establishment of the installation on Monday evening.

“It’s nothing short of historic,” he said. It demonstrates the “years-old alliance between the United States and the State of Israel.”

While it is indeed “historic,” it is also notable for the significant concession it represents. For decades Anglo-American interests benefited from the perception that Israel possessed its own aggressive, independent foreign policy. Maintaining this perception allowed the US and its Western allies to use Israel to carry out regional aggression while maintaining plausible deniability.

The aforementioned Brookings document specifically cited this as one of several possible means for provoking war with Iran – by having Israel appear to unilaterally attack Iran, with the US only joining in direct military intervention once Iran either committed to retaliation or a staged attack on Israel could be blamed on Iran.

With a permanent US military base on Israeli soil, plausible deniability and the illusion of an independent Israeli foreign policy vanishes completely. This may signal a much more blunt approach by Washington regarding any upcoming aggression against both Syria and Iran.

Regional Consolidation in Preparation for What?

The US finds itself overtly consolidating its positions in the Middle East at a time when the global balance of power teeters dangerously close to irrevocably undoing American hegemony.

Preparing the Middle East for war with Iran has been a work-in-progress since the end of the Cold War. It is an agenda that has transcended multiple US presidencies and has included everything from US-backed terrorism in the form of organizations like Mojahedin-e Khalq (MEK), to US-backed color revolutions like the “Green Revolution” in 2009, to the current proxy war being waged against Syria and the ongoing diplomatic maneuvering surrounding the Iranian “nuclear deal.”

Radical shifts in US policy regarding Iran are not owed to new occupants in the White House, but rather the shifting geopolitical realities as the US declines and other nations incrementally rise upon the world stage. Today, the US has exhausted its international clout, repeatedly abused international mechanisms for conflict resolution, and is openly pursuing a war in Syria with the aid of militant groups internationally designated as terrorist organizations. As its ability to wage war against Ian behind a smokescreen of legitimacy dwindles, the likelihood of it openly carrying out an act of aggression increases.

US policymakers may hope that after consolidating its positions in the Middle East, it can carry out a single, sweeping act of military aggression Iran’s allies will be unable or unwilling to contest.

Desperate hegemons are dangerous hegemons.

________________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on US Secretly Pushing Toward War With Iran

Whatever Happened to America?

GEORGE ORWELL’S 1984

The following article/treatise by Paul Craig Roberts is long but very well done and worthy of your time. It deals with the question of how the ability to reason and use common sense is being lost in America. Something bad is happening to the brains of Americans. Very few Americans today still possess the basic thinking capabilities that were common only a few decades ago. The mind drain has caused them to lose the ability to analyze, reason, and figure things out. This has been done largely by to two things:  1. the horrific onslaught of immorality and deception from politicians and news organizations (PCR calls them “presstitutes”) as well as from public education. And  2. the biggest factor has been the population’s general loss of interest in the laws of God.

(ed.)


——————————————————–

Whatever Happened to America?

Paul Craig Roberts

Over the course of my lifetime America has become an infantile country.

When I was born America was different. Today it is a diversity country in which various segments divided by race, gender, and trivial politics, preach hate. Currently white heterosexual males are losing in the hate game, but once hate is unleashed it can turn on any and every one. Working class white males understand that they are the new underclass in a country in which everyone has privileges except them. Many of the university educated group of heterosexual white males are too brainwashed to understand what is happening to them. Indeed, some of them are so successfully brainwashed that they think it is their just punishment as a white male to be downtrodden.

Today the American left hates the working class with such intensity that the left is comfortable with their alliance with the super-rich One Percent and the military/security complex.

America is being destroyed by politics. Politicians divide a population into hate groups. This group hates that one and so on. In the US the most hated group is a southern white heterosexual male.

To rule America, Identity Politics is competing with a more powerful group – the military/security complex supported by the neoconservative ideology of American world hegemony.

Currently, Identity Politics and the military/security complex are working hand-in-hand to destroy what America used to be. Trump is hated by the powerful military/security complex because Trump wanted to “normalize relations with Russia,” that is, remove the “Russian threat” that the left invented to enable the power and budget of the military/security complex. The imbeciles think everyone but them are racist, misogynists, homophobic gun-nuts.

The fact that Trump intended to unwind the dangerous tensions that the Obama regime has created with Russia became his hangman’s noose. Designated as “Putin’s agent,” President Trump is possibly in the process of being framed by a Special Prosecutor, none other than member of the Shadow Government and former FBI director Robert Mueller. Mueller knows that whatever lie he tells will be accepted by the media presstitutes as the Holy Truth. However, as Trump, seeking self-preservation, moves into the war camp, it might not be necessary for the shadow government to eliminate him.

So the “Great American Democracy, The Morally Pure Country,” is actually a cover for the profits and power of the military/security complex. What is exceptional about America is the size of the corruption and evil in the government and in the private interest groups that control the government.

It wasn’t always this way. In 1958 at the height of the Cold War a young Texan, Van Cliburn, 23 years of age, ventured to show up at the International Tchaikovsky Piano Competition in Moscow. Given the rivalry between the military powers, what chance did an American have of walking away with the prize? The cold warriors of the time would, if asked, had said none.

But Van Cliburn electrified the audience, the Moscow Symphony, and the famous conductor. His reception by the Soviet audience was extraordinary. The judges went to Khrushchev and asked, “Can we give the prize to the American?” Khrushchev asked, “Was he the best.” The answer, “Yes.” “Well, then give him the prize.”

The Cold War should have ended right there, but the military/security complex would not allow it.

You can watch the performance here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV4wyxHMY9I

In other words, the Soviet Union, unlike America today, did not need to prevail over the truth. The Soviets gave what has perhaps become the most famous of all prizes for musical competition to an American. The Soviets were able to see and recognize truth, something few Americans any longer can do.

The supporters of this website are supporters because, unlike their brainwashed fellows who are tightly locked within The Matrix, they can tell the difference between truth and propaganda. The supporters of this website comprise the few who, if it is possible, will save America and the world from the evil that prevails in Washington.

Van Cliburn came home to America a hero. He went on to a grand concert career. If Van Cliburn had been judged in his day, as he would today, he would have been greeted on his return with a Soviet prize as a traitor. The New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, NPR and the rest of the presstitutes would have denounced him up one street and down another. How dare Van Cliburn legitimize the Soviet Union by participating in a music competition and accepting a Soviet prize!

Did you know that Van Cliburn, after his talented mother had provided all the music instruction she could, studied under a RUSSIAN woman? What more proof do you need that Van Cliburn was a traitor to America? Imagine, he studied under a RUSSIAN! I mean, really! Isn’t this a RUSSIAN connection?!

All those music critics at the New York Times and Washington Post would have been called RUSSIAN agents. I mean, gosh, they actually praised Van Cliburn for playing RUSSIAN music in MOSCOW so well.

Makes a person wonder if Ronald Reagan wasn’t also a RUSSIAN agent. Reagan, actually convinced Van Cliburn to come out of retirement and to play in the White House for Soviet leader Gorbachev, with whom Reagan was trying to end the Cold War.

I am making fun of what passes for reasoning today. Reason has been displaced by denunciation. If someone, anyone, says something, that can be misconstrued and denounced, it will be … the meaning of what was said not withstanding. Consider the recent statement by the Deputy Prime Minister of Japan, Taro Aso, in an address to members of his ruling political party. He said: “I don’t question your motives to be a politician. But the results are important. Hitler, who killed millions of people, was no good, even if his motives were right.”

To anyone capable of reason, it is perfectly clear that Aso is saying that the ends don’t justify the means. “Even if” is conditional. Aso is saying that even if Hitler acted in behalf of a just cause, his means were impermissible.

Aso, a man of principle, is instructing his party’s politicians to be moral beings and not to sacrifice morality to a cause, much less an American cause of Japanese re-armament so as to amplify Washington’s aggression toward China.

The response to a simple and straight forward statement that not even in politics do the ends justify the means was instant denunciation of the Deputy Prime Minister for “shameful” and “dangerous” remarks suggesting that Hitler “had the right motives.”

Arrgh! screamed the Simon Wiesenthat Center which saw a new holocaust in the making. Reuters reported that Aso had put his foot in his mouth by making remarks that “could be interpreted as a defense of Adolf Hitler’s motive for genocide during World War Two.”

Of course the South Koreans and the Chinese, who have WWII resentments against Japan, could not let the opportunity pass that the Western media created, and also unloaded on Japan, condemning the Deputy Prime Minister as a modern advocate of Hitlerism. The Chinese and South Koreans were too busy settling old scores to realize that by jumping on Aso they were undermining the Japanese opposition to the re-militarization of Japan, which will be at their expense.

Aso is astonished by the misrepresentation of his words. He said, “I used Hitler as an example of a bad politician. It is regrettable that my comment was misinterpreted and caused misunderstanding.”

It seems that hardly anyone was capable of comprehending what Aso said. He clearly denounced Hitler, declaring Hitler “no good,” but no one cared. He used the word, “Hitler,” which was sufficient to set off the explosion of denunciation. Aso responded by withdrawing Hitler as his example of a “bad politician.” And this is a victory?

The media, even RT alas, was quick to point out that Aso was already suspect. In 2013 Aso opposed the overturning of Japan’s pacifist constitution that Washington was pushing in order to recruit Japan in a new war front against China. Aso, in the indirect way that the Japanese approach dissent, said “Germany’s Weimar Constitution was changed [by the Nazis] before anyone knew. It was changed before anyone else noticed. Why don’t we learn from the technique?” Aso’s remarks were instantly misrepresented as his endorsement of surreptitiously changing Japan’s constitution, which was Washington’s aim, whereas Aso was defending its pacifist constraint, pointing out that Japan’s pacifistic Constitution was being changed without voters’ consent.

An explanation of Aso’s words, something that never would have needed doing prior to our illiterate times, has its own risks. Many Americans confuse an explanation with a defense. Thus, an explanation can bring denunciation for “defending a Japanese nazi.” Considering the number of intellectually-challenged Americans, I expect to read many such denunciations.

This is the problem with being a truthful writer in these times. More people want someone to denounce than want truth. Truth-tellers are persona non grata to the ruling establishment and to proponents of Identity Politics. It is unclear how much longer truth will be permitted to be expressed. Already it is much safer and more remunerative to tell the official lies than to tell the truth.

More people want their inculcated biases and beliefs affirmed by what they read than want to reconsider what they think, especially if changing their view puts them at odds with their peers. Most people believe what is convenient for them and what they want to believe. Facts are not important to them. Indeed, Americans deny the facts before their eyes each and every day. When an American stumbles over a truth he picks himself up, dusts himself off, and continues on as if nothing has happened. How can America be a superpower when the population for the most part is completely ignorant and brainwashed?

When truth-tellers are no more, it is unlikely they will be missed. No one will even know that they are gone. Already, gobs of people are unable to follow a reasoned argument based on undisputed facts.

Take something simple and clear, such as the conflict over several decades between North and South leading to the breakup of the union. The conflict was over tariffs … not about slavery. The North wanted them in order to protect northern industry from lower priced British manufactures. Without tariffs, northern industry was hemmed in by British goods and could not compete.

The South did not want the tariffs because it meant higher prices for the South and likely retaliation against the South’s export of cotton. The South saw the conflict in terms of lower income forced on southerners so that northern manufacturers could have higher incomes. The argument over the division of new states carved from former Indian territories was about Congress’ votes on the tariff. It is what the debates show. So many historians have written about these documented facts.

Slavery was not the issue, because as Lincoln said in his inaugural address, he had no inclination and no power to abolish slavery. Slavery was a states rights issue reserved to the states by the US Constitution.

The issue, Lincoln said in his inaugural address, was the collection of the tariff. There was no need, he said, for invasion or bloodshed. He just wanted the South to permit the federal government to collect the duties on imports. The northern states actually passed an amendment to the Constitution that prohibited slavery from ever being abolished by the federal government, and Lincoln gave his support.

For the South the problem was not slavery. The legality of slavery was clear and accepted by Lincoln in his inaugural address as a states’ right. However, a tariff was a power given by the Constitution to the federal government. Under the Constitution the South was required to accept a tariff if it passed Congress, and it was signed by the President. A tariff had passed two days prior to Lincoln’s inauguration.

The South couldn’t point at the real reason it was leaving the union – the tariff – if the South wanted to blame the north for its secession. In order to blame the North for the breakup of the union (BTW, the British are leaving the European Union without a war), the South turned to the nullification by some northern states of the federal law and US Constitutional provision (Article 4, Section 2) that required the return of runaway slaves. South Carolina’s secession document said that some Northern states by not returning slaves had broken the contract on which the union was formed. South Carolina’s argument became the basis for the secession documents of other states.

In other words, slavery became an issue in the secession because some Northern states (not the federal government) refused to comply with the constitutional obligation to return property as required by the US Constitution.

South Carolina was correct, but the northern states were acting as individual states, not as the federal government. It wasn’t Lincoln who nullified the Fugitive Slave Act, and states were not allowed to nullify constitutional provisions. It was a federal issue. Lincoln upheld the Fugitive Slave Act. In effect, what the South did was to nullify the power that the Constitution gives to the federal government to levy a tariff. Apologists for the South ignore this fact. The South had no more power under the Constitution to nullify a tariff than northern states had to nullify the Fugitive Slave Act.

Slavery was not, under the Constitution, a federal issue, but the tariff was. It was the South’s refusal of the tariff that caused Lincoln to invade the Confederacy.

You need to understand that in those days people thought of themselves as citizens of the individual states, not as citizens of the United States, just as today people in Europe think of themselves as citizens of France, Germany, Italy, etc., and not as citizens of the European Union. It was in the states that most government power resided. Robert E. Lee refused the offer of the command of the Union Army on the grounds that it would be treasonous for him to attack his own country of Virginia.

Having explained history as it was understood prior to its rewrite by Identity Politics (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/23/know-called-civil-war-not-slavery/), which has thrown history down the Orwellian Memory Hole, I was accused of “lying about the motivations of the South” by a reason-impaired reader.

In this reader we see not only the uninformed modern American but also the rudness of the uninformed modern American. I could understand a reader writing that perhaps I had misunderstood the secession documents, but “lying about the motivations of the South”? It is extraordinary to be called a liar by a reader incapable of understanding the issues. President Lincoln and the northern states gave the South complete and unequivocal assurances about slavery, but not about tariffs.

The reader sees a defense of slavery in the secession documents but is unable to grasp the wider picture that the South is making a states rights argument that some northern states, in the words of the South Carolina secession document, “have denied the rights of property . . . recognized by the Constitution.” The reader saw that the documents mentioned slavery but not tariffs, and concluded that slavery was the reason that the South seceded.

It did not occur to the reason-impaired reader to wonder why the South would secede over slavery when the federal government was not threatening slavery. In his inaugural address Lincoln said that he had neither the power nor the inclination to forbid slavery. The North gave the South more assurances about slavery by passing the Corwin Amendment that added to the existing constitutional protection of slavery by putting in a special constitutional amendment upholding slavery. As slavery was under no threat, why would the South secede over slavery?

The tariff was a threat, and it was a tariff, not a bill outlawing slavery, that had just passed. Unlike slavery, which the Constitution left to the discretion of individual states, tariffs were a federal issue. Under the Constitution states had no rights to nullify tariffs. Therefore, the South wanted out.

It also does not occur to the reason-impaired reader that if the war was over slavery why have historians, even court historians, been unable to find evidence of that in the letters and diaries of the soldiers on both sides?

In other words, we have a very full context here, and none of it supports that the war was fought over slavery. But the reader sees some words about slavery in the secession documents and his reasoning ability cannot get beyond those words.

This is the same absence of reasoning ability that led to the false conclusion that the Deputy Prime Minister of Japan was an admirer of Hitler.

Now for an example of an emotionally-impaired reader, one so emotional that he is unable to comprehend the meaning of his own words. This reader read Thomas DiLorenzo’s article (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/21/lincoln-myth-ideological-cornerstone-america-empire/) and my article (http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/08/28/weaponization-history-journalism/) as an “absolution of the South” and as “whitewashing of the South.” Of what he doesn’t say. Slavery? Secession? All that I and DiLorenzo offer are explanations. DiLorenzo is a Pennsylvanian. I grew up in the South but lived my life outside it. Neither of us are trying to resurrect the Confederacy. As I understand DiLorenzo, his main point is that the so- called “civil war” destroyed the original US Constitution and centralized power in Washington in the interest of Empire. I am pointing out that ignorance has spawned a false history that is causing a lot of orchestrated hate. Neither of us thinks that the country needs the hate and the division hate causes. We need to be united against the centralized power in Washington that is turning on the people.

Carried away by emotion, the reader dashed off an article to refute us. My interest is not to ridicule the reader but to use him as an example of the emotionally-impaired American. Therefore, I am protecting him from personal ridicule by not naming him or linking to his nonsensical article. My only interest is to illustrate how for too many Americans emotion precludes reason.

First, the reader in his article calls DiLorenzo and I names and then projects his sin upon us, accusing us of “name-calling,” which he says is “a poor substitute for proving points.”

Here is his second mistake. DiLorenzo and I are not “proving points.” We are stating long established known facts and asking how a new history has been created that is removed from the known facts.

So how does the emotionally-disturbed reader refute us in his article? He doesn’t. He proves our point.

First he acknowledges “what American history textbooks for decades have acknowledged: The North did not go to War to stop slavery. Lincoln went to war to save the Union.”

How does he get rid of the Corwin Amendment. He doesn’t. He says everyone, even “the most ardent Lincoln-worshipping court historian,” knows that the North and Lincoln gave the South assurances that the federal government would not involve itself in the slavery issue.

In other words, the reader says that there is nothing original in my article or DiLorenzo’s and that it is just the standard history, so why is he taking exception to it?

The answer seems to be that after agreeing with us that Lincoln did not go to war over slavery and gave the South no reason to go to war over slavery, the reader says that the South did go to war over slavery. He says that the war was fought over the issue of expanding slavery into new states created from Indian territories.

This is an extremely problematic claim for two indisputable reasons.

First, the South went to war because Lincoln invaded the South.

Second, the South had seceded and no longer had any interest in the status of new territories.

As I reported in my article, it is established historical record that the conflict over the expansion of slavery as new states were added to the Union was a fight over the tariff vote in Congress. The South was trying to keep enough representation to block the passage of a tariff, and the North was trying to gain enough representation to enact protectionism over the free trade South.

It is so emotionally important to the reader that the war was over slavery that he alleges that the reason the South was not seduced by the Corwin Amendment is that it did not guarantee the expansion of slavery into new states, but only protected slavery in those states in which it existed. In other words, the reader asserts that the South fought for an hegemonic ideology of slavery in the Union. But the South had left the Union, so clearly it wasn’t fighting to expand slavery outside its borders. Moreover, the North gave the South no assurances over the South’s real concern—its economic exploitation by the North. The same day the North passed the Corwin Amendment the North passed the tariff. Clearly, it was not assurances over slavery that mattered to the South. Slavery was protected by states rights. It was the tariff that was important to the South.

Whereas the tariff was the issue that brought the conflict to a head, correspondence between Lord Acton and Robert E. Lee shows that the deeper issue was liberty and its protection from centralized power. On November 4, 1866, Lord Acton wrote to Robert E. Lee: “I saw in State Rights the only availing check upon the absolutism of the sovereign will, and secession filled me with hope, not as the destruction but as the redemption of Democracy.” Acton saw in the US Constitution defects that could lead to the rise of despotism. Acton regarded the Confederate Constitution as “expressly and wisely calculated to remedy” the defects in the US Constitution. The Confederate Constitution, Acton said, was a “great Reform [that] would have blessed all the races of mankind by establishing true freedom purged of the native dangers and disorders of Republics.” https://www.lewrockwell.com/2017/09/no_author/famed-libertarian-writes-robert-e-lee/

Lee replied: “I yet believe that the maintenance of the rights and authority reserved to the states and to the people, not only essential to the adjustment and balance of the general system, but the safeguard to the continuance of a free government. I consider it as the chief source of stability to our political system, whereas the consolidation of the states into one vast republic, sure to be aggressive abroad and despotic at home, will be the certain precursor of that ruin which has overwhelmed all those that have preceded it.”

A present day American unfamiliar with the 18th and 19th century efforts to create a government that could not degenerate into despotism will see hypocrisy in this correspondence and misread it. How, the present day American will ask, could Acton and Lee be talking about establishing true freedom when slavery existed? The answer is that Acton and Lee, like George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, understood that there were more ways of being enslaved than being bought and sold. If the battle is lost over the character of government and power becomes centralized, then all are enslaved.

Lee’s prediction of a government “aggressive abroad and despotic at home” has come true. What is despotism if not indefinite detention on suspicion alone without evidence or conviction, if not execution on suspicion alone without due process of law, if not universal spying and searches without warrants?

What I find extraordinary about today’s concern with slavery in the 1800s is the lack of concern with our enslavement today. It is amazing that Americans do not realize that they were enslaved by the passage of the income tax in 1913. Consider the definition of a slave. It is a person who does not own his own labor or the products of his own labor. Of course, if the slave is to live to work another day some of his labor must go to his subsistence. How much depended on the technology and labor productivity. On 19th century southern plantations, the slave tax seems to have been limited short of the 50% rate.

When I entered the US Treasury as Assistant Secretary, the top tax rate on personal income was 50%. During the medieval era, serfs did not own all of their own labor. At the time I studied the era, the top tax rate on serfs was believed to have been limited to one-third of the serf’s working time. Given labor productivity in those days, any higher tax would have prevented the reproduction of the labor force.

So what explains the concern about wage slavery in 1860 but not in 2017?
The answer seems to be Diversity Politics. In 1860 blacks had the burden of wage slavery. In 2017 all have the burden except for the rich whose income is in the form of capital gains and those among the poor who don’t work. Identity Politics cannot present today’s wage slavery as the unique burden of a “preferred minority.” Today those most subjected to wage slavery are the white professionals in the upper middle class. That is where the tax burden is highest. Americans living at public expense are exempted from wage slavery by lack of taxable income. Consequently, the liberal/progressive/left only objects to 19th century wage slavery. 20th Century wage slavery is perfectly acceptable to the liberal/progressive/left. Indeed, they want more of it.

People can no longer think or reason. There seems to be no rational component in their brain, just emotion set into action by fuse-lighting words.
Here is an example hot off the press. This month in Cobb County, Georgia, a car was pulled over for driving under the influence of alcohol. The white police lieutenant requested the ID of a white woman. She replied that she is afraid to reach into her purse for her license, because she has read many stories of people being shot because police officers conclude that they are reaching for a gun. Instead of tasering the woman for non-compliance, yanking her out of the car, and body slamming her, the lieutenant diffused the situation by making light of her concern. “We only shoot black people, you know.” This is what a person would conclude from the news, because seldom is a big stink made when the police shoot a white person.

The upshot of the story is that the lieutenant’s words were recorded on his recorder and when they were entered as part of the incident report, the chief of police announced that the lieutenant was guilty of “racial insensitivity” and would be fired for the offense.

Now think about this. A little reasoning is necessary. How are the words racially insensitive when no black persons were present? How are the words racially insensitive when the lieutenant said exactly what blacks themselves say? And now the clincher: Which is the real insensitivity, saying “we only shoot black people” or actually shooting black people? How is it possible that the officer who uses “racially insensitive” words to diffuse a situation is more worthy of punishment that an officer who actually shoots a black person? Seldom is an officer who has shot a black, white, hispanic, Asian, child, grandmother, cripple, or the family dog ever fired. The usual “investigation” clears the officer on the grounds that he had grounds to fear his life was in danger—precisely the reason the woman didn’t want to reach into her purse.

For a person who tries to tell the truth, writing is a frustrating and discouraging experience. What is the point of writing for people who cannot read, who cannot follow a logical argument because their limited mental capabilities are entirely based in emotion, who have no idea of the consequence of a population imbued with hate that destroys a nation in divisiveness?

I ask myself this question every time I write a column.

Indeed, given the policies of Google and PayPal it seems more or less certain that before much longer anyone who speaks outside The Matrix will be shut down.

Free speech is only allowed for propagandists. Megyn Kelly has free speech as long as her free speech lies for the ruling establishment. Her lies are protected by an entire media network backed by the Shadow Government and the Deep State.

My truth is backed only by your support.

So, if you want the truth, or as close as I can get to it, support this website.

___________________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Whatever Happened to America?

Dear Russia: An Enemy Is Not A Partner

Paul Craig Roberts

Russians are concerned about Washington’s arbitrary closing of their San Francisco consulate and the illegal searching of diplomatic properties. There is no question that Washington has violated diplomatic protections and international law.

Why did Washington show its outlaw face to the world?

Was it to show that as strong as Russia is, Russia cannot protect herself from Washington? No international law, no diplomatic immunity can stand in Washington’s way. Washington can violate all law with no consequence.
Washington’s view is that might, and only might, makes right. Law is thrown out of the window, so why does Russia rely on law in her dealings with Washington?

Was it to plant some fake evidence in the Russian properties of Russian complicity in the US presidential election that elected a candidate that prefered peace over conflict with Russia?

Russia’s foreign minister Lavrov has told the US Secretary of State that Russia is going to sue over the seizure and search of Russia’s diplomatic properties. So, here we see again the Russians trying to deal with Washington through law, courts, diplomacy, whatever, and not facing the real issue.

What is the real issue?

The Real Issue is that the US military/security complex, the most powerful component of the US government, has decided that Russia is the ENEMY that justifies its $1,000 billion annual budget and the power that goes with it.

In other words, Russia is designated America’s Number One Enemy, and there is nothing whatsoever Russian diplomacy, Russian measured responses, and Russian references to her enemy as her “partner” can do about it.

Dear Russia, you must understand that you have been assigned the role of “the Enemy.”

Yes, of course, there is no objective reason for Russia being designated America’s enemy. Nevertheless, that is Russia’s designation. Washington has no interest in any facts. Washington is ruled by a shadow government and the deep state, consisting of the CIA, the military/security complex, and financial interests. These interests support US world hegemony, both financial and military. Russia and China are in the way of these powerful interest groups.

The case against Russia becomes more absurd by the day. Newsweek just published a story that suggests Russia is behind the Boston Marathon Bombing. https://sputniknews.com/politics/201709061057119169-newsweek-claims-russia-boston-bombing/

Russia can’t do anything about her designation as Enemy Number One.

So, what can Russia do?

All Russia can do is to turn her back to the West, while watching very closely for the coming surprise attack. There is nothing in America for Russia. Any American investment in Russia will be used to damage Russia. Russia does not need any American capital. The Russian central bank’s belief in Russia’s need for foreign capital is proof of the successful brainwashing of Russian economists by American neoliberalism during the Yeltsin era. The Russian central bank is so brainwashed that it is incapable of understanding that the Russian central bank can finance Russian development without any foreign loans. The Russian government still doesn’t seem to understand that the only reason sanctions can be imposed on Russia is because Russia is ensnared in the Western financial system. The economic advice that the Russian government gets from its brainwashed neoliberal economists serves Washington’s interests, not Russia’s.

Russia should not be using Western financial clearing mechanisms that serve Washington’s interests.

When will the Russian government cease pretending that its enemy is its partner?

Why can’t the Russian government recognize the reality that stares her in the face, that continually insults and abuses Russia?

Why is Russia so determined to be part of the corrupt and declining West that Russia accepts every insult, every abuse?

The West has room for only one autonomous power. There is no room for a second.

China, intent on being rich like capitalists, also seems unrealistic in its dealings with Washington.

The orchestrated “Korean crisis” is not about North Korea. It is an orchestration that lets Washington put nuclear missile bases on China’s border, just as the orchestrated “Iranian crisis” was the excuse for putting nuclear missile bases on Russia’s borders.

Russia cannot be both sovereign and part of the West, and China cannot afford to confuse self-preservation with economic deals with America.

If the two powers capable of constraining Washington’s unilateralism show confusion over the consequences, they will make war more likely.

___________________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Dear Russia: An Enemy Is Not A Partner

Behold a Pale Horse, and its Rider is Death

Paul Craig Roberts

Two of America’s most populous states, Texas and Florida, are in hurricane ruins, and Washington is fomenting more wars.

The US national debt is now over $20 trillion, and Washington is fomenting more wars.

The entire world is helping Washington foment wars—including two targeted countries themselves—Russia and China—both of which are helping Washington foment more wars. Believe it or not, both Russia and China voted with Washington on the UN Security Council to impose more and harsher sanctions on North Korea, a country guilty of nothing but a desire to have the means to protect itself from the US and not become yet another Washington victim like Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, Serbia, and Ukraine overthrown in a US coup and now poverty-stricken.

I once thought that Russia and China were checks on Washington’s unilateralism, but apparently not. Both governments have been knuckled under by Washington and both voted to punish North Korea for striving to be sufficiently armed to protect its sovereignty from Washington.

Why are Russia and China repeating their same mistake that they made when they supported Washington’s no-fly UN resolution for Libya, a resolution that Washington and NATO stood on its head when they launched air attacks that helped the CIA organized “jihadists” overthrow Libya’s progressive government and murder Gaddafi?

Russia knows that it is surrounded by US nuclear and military bases. So does China. The question is: have Russia and China capitulated out of fear? Or is their cooperation with Washington a ruse while they prepare their own strike on Washington, or are the two misguided governments trying to cooperate with Washington a la sanctions so as to avoid having to confront a US military attack on North Korea?

It requires much competence to confront evil, and there is probably more evil in Washington than there is competence in Russia and China, two countries interested in being rich to an extent that it might cost them their sovereignty and existence.

When you see such potentially powerful countries as Russia and China collapse under Washington’s pressure in the UN Security Council, it makes you wonder if the various analyses of Washington’s many weaknesses are real, and if they are real, if Russia and China are aware of them.

How does one go about explaining why two countries, whose sovereignty is in the way of Washington’s world hegemony, help their known enemy bully yet another small country, especially one in their orbit of influence? How can Russia complain of sanctions against Russia based on nothing but Washington’s propaganda when Russia supports sanctions against North Korea based on Washington’s propaganda?

Russia and China have nothing to fear from North Korean nuclear weapons. Indeed, no one does except a country that attacks North Korea. What is the explanation for Russia and China lining up with Washington’s foreign policy against North Korea when Russia and China know that Washington’s foreign policy is hostile to Russia and China?

Just the other day Washington announced that it was increasing its navy warships in the South China Sea to make sure China doesn’t think the South China Sea is Chinese, instead of American, territorial waters. Just the other day more election interfering charges were leveled against Russia. This time Facebook was the mechanism by which Russia stole the US presidential election.

These positions taken by Washington are absurd. Yet, they are becoming the reality. The frightening development is that the entire world, the entirely of the UN and Security Council are now captured by Washington in The Matrix. It seems that not even Russia and China can any longer see their own national interest.

Russia and China are working hand-in-hand with Washington toward their own demise.

It is becoming biblical. Washington the anti-Christ is subverting all good on earth.

Behold, a Pale Horse, and its Rider is Washington.

_______________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Behold a Pale Horse, and its Rider is Death

Blackwater Founder Seeks Privatization of Afghan War

22.08.2017 Ulson Gunnar

 (For those who understand US foreign policy this article shows that the US Government is intentionally creating wars, not fighting to stop them. The US Government invades nations to facilitate corporate profiteers, and cares nothing for the poor residents of the nations they invade. Erik Prince’s organization will be paid billions by the US Government, and will help other profiteers make billions from the Afghan drug trade.  -ed)

The Afghanistan government had stopped the opium and heroin trade there in 2000 because it was against Islamic law. But production rates in Afghanistan have skyrocketed ever since Washington invaded that country and overthrew their government.

 

Recent murmurs across the US media have indicated increased interest in “outsourcing” the war in Afghanistan to private military contractors. National Public Radio (NPR) interviewed Erik Prince, founder of controversial military contracting firm, Blackwater, who appears to be leading lobbying efforts toward this end.

In an interview titled, “Blackwater Founder Backs Outsourcing Afghan War-Fighting to Contractors,” Prince would defend his proposal for the creation of an “American viceroy” in Afghanistan, consolidating and overseeing all US operations in the country.

He would also suggest replacing US troops with private mercenaries who he claimed would operate inside Afghan units, noting that some 25,000 contractors are already present in Afghanistan. When asked if his current private military contracting company, Frontier Service Group (FSG), would be interested in bidding on contracts that might materialize out of his proposal, he responded by saying, “absolutely.”

Steve Inskeep, who conducted the interview, noted that Prince’s proposal for an “American viceroy” overseeing what is essentially a private army inside of Afghanistan resembled very closely Imperial Britain’s colonial administration of India, an administration that carved out personal fiefdoms for influential British businessmen and lords, and emptied out India’s wealth into British coffers.

Inskeep also noted that such a proposal, even before being implemented, most likely would create further resentment among Afghans.

Prince, for his part, attempted to defend the proposal, claiming that current efforts in Afghanistan have cost American taxpayers several trillions and the cost would only continue to rise. He noted that such efforts have resulted in little progress. The “progress” Prince was referring to was defeating “terrorism” and preventing the country from becoming a safe haven for organizations like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State.

Prince would claim:

There’s really three ways we can go in Afghanistan. We can pull out completely, in which case, the Afghan government would likely collapse in a matter of weeks and the terrorists would run the country. And for as hard as, you know, we may be pushing in Iraq or Syria and elsewhere to destroy the Islamic State, this would give them a victory. 

Back in Reality…

Unfortunately for Prince and others attempting to propose the privatization of the Afghan war, Afghanistan already is a safe haven for terrorists. Al Qaeda had only a nascent presence there before the US invasion in 2001. The Islamic State, in its current form, did not even exist.

Both organizations flourish not because of a lack of US troops in Afghanistan, Syria or Iraq, but precisely because US foreign policy has turned its attention toward each nation and has intentionally used both terrorist organizations as proxies.

In Afghanistan, while Al Qaeda and the Islamic State are used as a pretext for both the continued presence of US troops there and now the proposed deployment of a private army headed by an “American viceroy,” the real battle has always been against the Taliban and in favor of an obedient client state headquartered in Kabul.

In pursuit of defeating the Taliban and the creation of a sustainable client state, the extensive use of private contractors in Afghanistan has not been part of any sort of coherent solution. Instead, private contractors are one of the most central reasons attempts at rebuilding Afghanistan have failed.

Private contractors seek to maximize profits and return home, and ultimately do not care what happens in Afghanistan. In many ways, shoddy work and continued chaos ensures continued contracts and immense profits. The estimated 2.4 trillion dollars spent on Afghanistan so far have not simply “disappeared.” This immense amount of wealth has been transferred from US taxpayers to, in part, private contractors and the defense industry.

The notion of creating an “American viceroy” leading a private army in Afghanistan would give people like Erik Prince and other ambitious heads of contracting firms an entire nation to preside over and a government-subsidized budget to do it with. With the nation’s immense narcotics industry and that industry’s apparent ability to export worldwide under the nose of the US military with impunity, contractors notorious for systemic impropriety would have additional sources of revenue to tap and develop.

Toward Narco-Terror Fiefdoms 

Rather than stabilizing and rebuilding Afghanistan, contractors would ensure its perpetual slide into darkness. Instead of dealing with the Taliban, Afghans would face foreign contractors competing to carve out their own personal narco-terrorist fiefdoms. The US client regime in Kabul would have even less control over its military, with entire Afghan battalions dependent not on Kabul for support and leadership, but private contractors.

Prince and Blackwater have become synonymous with murder and mayhem for money and present yet another case study as to why dependence on mercenaries is always a dangerous liability. His proposal offers neither the American nor the Afghan people any benefits and is entertained only for the benefits it potentially offers military contractors and the immense armament industry that would provide them a steady stream of weaponry.

 A look at the Late Roman Empire, and the manner in which mercenaries transformed into independent entities of their own, complete with their own territory and armies that answered only to themselves, serves as a cautionary reminder as to where Prince’s proposal ultimately leads. What this latest debate illustrates is the evolution of modern organized crime, a culmination of blood, money, guns and turf on a global scale, carried out not by states, but by corporations and private armies.

But if one is to dismiss Prince’s criminal conspiracy and take his proposal at face value, it should be remembered that if the US military with 2.4 trillion dollars and 16 years could not transform Afghanistan into an obedient client state, mercenaries certainly can’t and won’t.

Fighting Terror Starts in Ankara, Riyadh and Doha, Not Afghan Mountains 

Prince’s claims that contractors, or even the US military itself have any role to play in combating “terrorism” by remaining in Afghanistan deserves further scrutiny.

Terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State depend heavily on state sponsorship, particularly from nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar. In turn, each of these regimes depends heavily on US support to remain in power and to exercise that power beyond their respective borders.

The United States itself, ironically, played a central role in Afghanistan, creating, honing and expanding Al Qaeda’s fighting capacity there, before it spread worldwide.

Defeating organizations like Al Qaeda and the Islamic State must then, by necessity, revolve around exposing and dismantling centers of power in nations like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar who are sponsoring both organizations as well as exposing and dismantling interests in the US propping up each of these sponsors.

Prince, and his backers, seek not to fight terror, but to profit from it.

____________________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Blackwater Founder Seeks Privatization of Afghan War