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

Polls: US Is ‘the Greatest Threat to Peace in the World Today’ — What They Did To Ukraine

What America’s Coup in Ukraine Did

Listening to the US media, even the most diligent news junkie would find it difficult to know that the U.S. State Department played not only a vital role in the violence and chaos underway in Ukraine but was also complicit in creating the coup that ousted democratically elected President Viktor Yanuyovch.    Given the Russian Parliament’s approval of Putin’s request for military troops to be moved into Crimea, Americans uninformed about the history of that region might also be persuaded that Russia is the aggressor and the sole perpetrator of the violence.

Let’s be clear about what is at stake here:     NATO missiles on the adjacent Ukraine border aimed directly at Russia would make that country extremely vulnerable to Western goals and destabilization efforts while threatening Russia’s only water access to its naval fleet in Crimean peninsula, the Balkans, the Mediterranean Sea and the Middle East – and not the least of which would allow world economic dominance by the US, the European Union, the IMF, World Bank and international financiers all of whom had already brought staggering suffering to millions around the globe.

On March 23rd, Gallup headlined “South Sudan, Haiti and Ukraine Lead World in Suffering”, and the Ukrainian part of that can unquestionably be laid at the feet of U.S. President Barack Obama, who in February 2014 imposed upon Ukraine a very bloody coup (see above), which he and his press misrepresented (and still misrepresent) as being (and still represent as having been) a ‘democratic revolution’, but was nothing of the sort, and actually was instead the start of the Ukrainian dictatorship and the hell that has since destroyed that country, and brought the people there into such misery, it’s now by far the worst in Europe, and nearly tied with the worst in the entire world.

America’s criminal ‘news’ media never even reported the coup, nor that in 2011 the Obama regime began planning for a coup in Ukraine. And that by 1 March 2013 they started organizing it inside the U.S. Embassy there. And that they hired members of Ukraine’s two racist-fascist, or nazi, political parties, Right Sector and Svoboda (which latter had been called the Social Nationalist Party of Ukraine until the CIA advised them to change it to Freedom Party, or “Svoboda” instead). And that in February 2014 the US Victoria Nuland instructed the U.S. Ambassador whom to place in charge of the new regime when the coup will be completed), under the cover of authentic anti-corruption demonstrations that the Embassy organized on the Maidan Square in Kiev, demonstrations that the criminal U.S. ‘news’ media misrepresented as ‘democracy demonstrations,’ though Ukraine already had democracy (but still lots of corruption, even more than today’s U.S. does, and the pontificating Obama said he was trying to end Ukraine’s corruption — which instead actually soared after his coup there).

The head of the ‘private CIA’ firm Stratfor said it was “the most blatant coup in history” but he couldn’t say that to Americans, because he knows that our press is just a mouthpiece for the regime (just like it was during the lead-up to George W. Bush’s equally unprovoked invasion of Iraq — for which America’s ‘news’ media suffered likewise no penalties).

When subsequently accused by neocons for his having said this, his response was “I told the business journal Kommersant that if the US were behind a coup in Kiev, it would have been the most blatant coup in history,” but he was lying to say this, because, as I pointed out when writing about that rejoinder of his, he had, in fact, made quite clear in his Kommersant interview, that it was, in his view “the most blatant coup in history,” no conditionals on that.

Everybody knows what Obama, and Clinton, and Sarkozy, did to Libya — in their zeal to eliminate yet another nation’s leader who was friendly toward Russia (Muammar Gaddafi), they turned one of the highest-living-standard nations in Africa into a failed state and huge source of refugees (as well as of weapons that the Clinton State Department transferred to the jihadists in Syria to bring down Bashar al-Assad, another ally of Russia) — but the ‘news’ media have continued to hide what Obama (assisted by America’s European allies, especially Poland and Netherlands, and also by America’s apartheid Middle Eastern ally, Israel) did to Ukraine.

I voted for Obama, partly because the insane McCain (“bomb, bomb, bomb Iran”) and the creepy Romney (“Russia, this is, without question, our number one geopolitical foe”) were denounced by the (duplicitous) Obama for saying such evil things, their aggressive international positions, which continued old Cold-War-era hostilities into the present, even after the Cold War had ended long ago (in 1991) (but only on the Russian side). I since have learned that in today’s American political system, the same aristocracy controls both of our rotten political Parties, and American democracy no longer exists. (And the only scientific study of whether America between the years 1981 and 2002 was democratic found that it was not, and it already confirmed what Jimmy Carter later said on 28 July 2015:

Now it’s just an oligarchy with unlimited political bribery being the essence of getting the nominations for president or being elected president. And the same thing applies to governors, and U.S. Senators and congress members.”

But yet our Presidents continue the line, now demonstrably become a myth, of ‘American democracy’, and use it as a sledgehammer against other governments, to ‘justify’ invading (or, in Ukraine’s case, overthrowing via a ‘democratic revolution’) their lands (allies of Russia) such as in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and maybe even soon, Iran.

Here are some of the events and important historical details along the way to Ukraine’s plunge into a worse condition than most African nations:

Please send this article to every friend who is part of the majority that, as a Quinnipiac University poll published on March 22nd reported, “A total of 51 percent of voters say they can trust U.S. intelligence agencies to do what is right ‘almost all of the time’ or ‘most of the time’” (and that level of trust was far higher than for the rotten press and for the rotten politicians), even after the CIA’s rubber-stamping Bush’s lies to invade Iraq, and after the FBI’s shameless performance on Hillary Clinton’s privatized State Department emails even after her smashing their cell-phones with hammers, etc., and all the other official cover-ups, with no American officials even so much as being charged for their rampant crimes against the American public. Besides: ever since the CIA’s founding, it has had an “Operation Gladio” that specializes in organizing terrorist acts so as for them to be blamed on, first, communist countries when they existed; and, then, after the end of communism, on allies of Russia. Did the American dictatorship begin right after FDR died in 1945? How much longer will these lies succeed?

For the people of Iraq, and of Syria, and of Ukraine, and many such countries, this dictatorship has destroyed their lives. Trusting the ‘intelligence’ services of a dictatorship doesn’t make any sense at all. They’re all working for the aristocracy, the billionaires — not for any public, anywhere; not here, not there, just nowhere. Should the cattle trust the feedlot-operator? Only ignorance can produce trust, under the conditions that actually exist.

So, unless the idea is that ignorance is bliss, pass along the truth, when you find it, because it is very rare — and the system operates to keep it that way.

________________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Polls: US Is ‘the Greatest Threat to Peace in the World Today’ — What They Did To Ukraine

US Meddles Abroad, Accuses Others of Meddling at Home

 8-7-2017  –  Joseph Thomas

The latest round of sanctions levelled by the United States government against Russia are predicated on allegations that Moscow interfered in the 2016 US presidential elections. Alleged interference includes leaking e-mails obtained from the US Democrat Party.

However, compared to the open interference the US conducts around the world in the internal political affairs of nations, leaked e-mails is particularly benign.

Across Southeast Asia, entire political parties, including Aung San Suu Kyi’s National League for Democracy, Anwar Ibrahim’s Bersih street front and Thailand’s Pheu Thai Party and accompanying street movement, the United Front for Democracy Against Dictatorship (UDD) have attempted and at times succeeded at clawing their way into power primarily because of extensive financial and political support from the United States and various European allies.

In addition to support in the shape of propping up entire political parties, the US funds and directs myriad fronts posing as nongovernmental organisations (NGOs). In Thailand, these include media platform Prachatai, the Foreign Correspondents Club of Thailand (FCCT), Thai Lawyers for Human Rights (TLHR), the New Democracy Movement and Thai Netizen.

Many of these organisations have invested in elaborate efforts to conceal their foreign financial support indicating knowledge among these organisations that they are involved in impropriety.

Many pose as impartial rights advocates, but use their rights advocacy as a facade behind which they pursue politically-motivated agendas. In addition to assisting US-backed political parties into power, they also promote Washington’s regional aspirations including confrontation with and the encirclement of China and the creation of US-funded and directed organisations that run parallel to and eventually supplant local civil society organisations and institutions.

US Allegations vs Documented US Interference 

US sanctions against Russia are still based entirely on allegations yet to be confirmed with anything resembling evidence.

Conversely, US interference abroad is openly documented. Across Asia alone, the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) openly lists organisations and political activities the US is attempting to influence and control in each respective country.

In addition to funding, the US and Western allies openly assist many of these organisations in their work on the ground via embassies. The above mentioned TLHR, created with the explicit assistance of the US Embassy in Bangkok the day after the 2014 coup which ousted the US-backed administration, was recently assisted by Canadian embassy staff who openly thanked the US ambassador to Thailand, Glyn Davies for his support in aiding the front.

TLHR regularly offers legal defence exclusively for agitators and subversives attempting to undermine the current political order in  Thailand and pave the way for foreign-backed opposition to seize power. While TLHR and fellow recipients of US money and directives claim to advocate human rights impartially, they regularly excuse, ignore or defend abuses carried out by US-backed parties and organisations.

These double standards expose US activity abroad as clear cut political interference, based on US interests, not principles, and conducted openly and expansively, and in a manner the US has accused and condemned Russia of pursuing in regards to America’s own internal politics.

How then is it possible for the US to condemn others of interfering within its own political affairs, but find it acceptable to interfere on a global scale? This monumental, self-evident and growing hypocrisy is a contributing factor to America’s waning influence globally. Its inconsistency between what it finds unacceptable for others to do in America versus what it itself is doing worldwide undermines its political legitimacy just as much as double standards exercised by recipients of US

money undermine their credibility in each and every country they operate in.

Furthermore, the US levelling sanctions against Russia opens the door for those targeted by US interference to put in place measures to limit or entirely eliminate fronts operating with US money and for US interests.

Unlike US sanctions against Russia, sanctions enacted by nations targeted by the US via the NED and other networks can easily cite documented evidence provided by the US itself regarding political interference. And with the US attempting to label those deemed sympathetic to Russia as subversives, it would not be a far stretch for nations to label those openly receiving money from the US as subversives.

America’s double standards had a place and time when they were viable. As the world increasingly becomes multipolar, such hypocrisy becomes a liability, not a representation of impunity and strength. In many ways already, this hypocrisy is costing the US legitimacy worldwide and opening the doors for targets of its ambitions to push back using precisely the same tools the US has used for decades. The latest row Washington has deepened with Moscow opens those doors wider still.

(ED: Please listen to Confessions Of An Economic Hitman by John Perkins as another witness as to how the US interferes in other nations’ politics and economics around the world. Given this fact, it is laughable and hypocritical for the US government to make any claims that some country interferes in US politics.)

________________________________________________________________

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on US Meddles Abroad, Accuses Others of Meddling at Home

So You Don’t Want the Russians Interfering Then “Why Trade With India?”

14.07.2017 –  Seth Ferris

657452343223The dispute over alleged Russian interference in the US-election is less about whether Trump broke US law by accepting donations from foreign nationals during his election campaign, and more about whether you can be on two sides at once. Recent efforts by both Russia and the US to deepen relations with India, whilst seemingly unconnected, are part of the same attempt to square this circle. The US has made all kinds of noises about “resetting relations with Russia” for a number of years now. But when Russia asks why it is surrounded by NATO bases whose weapons are pointed at it if the US wants co-operation, no credible answer is given. The real reason is that the hegemonic rulers in the US know that you can’t be a superpower without an enemy. You can be the leader of your own side, but if there are no sides there is no one left to fight, and people start questioning your credentials.

This is why Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych (former leader of Ukraine) was told point blank to choose between Russia and the EU, when both were offering him funds to help his country stay afloat. He refused to favor one over the other, quite sensibly given Ukraine’s geopolitical location. So the EU US connived and conspired to get rid of him as an example to others: you can have the West or Russia, but not both.

So we might well wonder: why, in this age of rising BRICS influence, is India not being subjected to the same treatment as, say, Syria? On the one hand, it has remained a Western-style parliamentary democracy even though often run by avowed socialists. On the other hand it has a long history of positive relations with the Soviet Union and now Russia, which have even extended to assistance with nuclear weapons development, that “no-no” for developing nations.

India is strategically significant. It borders other nuclear states and provided access to significant resources which the locals have trouble using for their own benefit. Its growing economy has also allowed it to play a larger role in global affairs, and lay down terms for friendship rather than having them imposed upon them. So this is a country the West wants to keep onside and out of the grip of “the enemy”, whether that is perceived as Russia or any other nation. Logically, any trade deal between India and Russia should therefore arouse Western suspicion. But these already strong relations are only improving, and there seems to be little comment about what Vladimir Putin might be trying to achieve through his involvement in India. This proves the West’s disingenuousness.

Defense cooperation should be even more concerning to the West, but apparently it isn’t. Russia has recently signed agreements to build even more planes and ships for the Indian armed forces, and again the US is silent. There have been no threats of sanctions over this. According to Western geopolitics, accepting Russian assistance should make India part of the enemy camp. But the West is apparently happy to accept India’s position as the “strategic autonomy” it describes it as, rather than a hostile act. Why is India allowed to do what Syria and and many other countries on the periphery of Russia, are not? The neocons have their reasons and it doesn’t have to make sense. It only has to fit the US plan of hegemony.

The British had nothing to hold against India, unlike other colonies where the independence struggle was underway, and could thus be used to color future relations. Thanks largely to Gandhi, the British had no choice but to leave India as a friend. India went running to the Soviet Union to prove its independence more than anything. But this also set its relations with the British on a better footing: if the British accepted the India-Soviet relationship, despite general Western hostility to such relations, it accepted India’s independence, which the British had granted voluntarily to retain friendship rather than alienate this vast subcontinent forever. Sometimes this relationship took hostile forms. Indians soon came to see their politicians as a corrupt and remote caste.

But the overall effect of the long Indian-Soviet and Indian-Russian friendships has been to make any country which deals with India accept that whatever it offers, India will get the same or better from Russia. Other countries trading with India see their deals used as a bargaining chip in the next round of India-Russia talks. Defense contractors have no choice but to make ever-increasing offers, regardless of what Russia does to match them, because withdrawing would simply make India more dependent on Russia, and India’s non-alignment is now more important to the West than it is for India itself, which has obtained the means to chart a genuinely independent geopolitical course unencumbered by labels. In this respect Mahatma Gandhi has created the India he aspired to: not only independent, but a place where everyone is obliged to be friendly. If the West wants to start proxy wars with the declared enemy, as it did in Ukraine, Syria and former Yugoslavia, it won’t get away with it in India. India has gone one step further than the founders of the EU: not only has it integrated economies to make war impossible, it has integrated the interests of the powers it deals with to make war between them, using India as a pretext, equally impossible. If you deal with India, which all countries are increasingly doing, you cannot continue treating Russia as the enemy. You simply have to accept that your friend is their friend. Stopping that idea spreading, and ultimately removing the US’s global hegemony, is what the complaint about Russian interference in different countries is actually about.

Sit down and shut up

The West has imposed economic sanctions on Russia. These are not only having an effect on Russians but the wide variety of people from former Soviet states who live and work there to support families back home. Maybe the West’s idea is that these people will rise up against Russia and overthrow it. That didn’t work in Russia itself during Cold War times, and there is little sign that the modern Russian leadership is going to implode ideologically like the Soviet Communist Party did. Russia is looking to India to resolve some of the problems sanctions have brought. To lessen reliance on energy prices, Russia is exporting both arms and nuclear power facilities. Western countries are still officially trying their hardest to stop this and also stop countries from building safe and efficient nuclear power plants, and decommission existing plants. They have undermined these plans by imposing unreasonable carbon emission rules on client nations, whilst often ignoring those rules themselves .

But developing countries thus have no choice but to return to nuclear power to supply their own populations, and both Russia and India are exploiting this. If the West insists on creating enemies to maintain its own position, seeing this as a better way for the world to be, it will eventually have to confront India. But with what? Is the West prepared to offer more than Russia can, or take direct action which would force India to rely ever more on Russia? The West can’t answer these questions, but won’t have to as long as it continues treating India as a special case, allowing it to be all things to all sides. But this raises the further question: would it really harm the West so much to apply the same principle across the board, and stop identifying enemies everywhere?

The West’s declared enemies, whether Russians or Muslims, are portrayed as dangerous. Apparently people (immigrants) whom the US declares are under constant, debilitating threat themselves are able to do anything they like to harm Western interests. As with any strategic calculation, pursuing your identified interests carries risk: the benefit you gain from your actions has to be greater than the negative consequences of taking them. But it is the West itself which is saying that the people it calls enemies are doing so much harm that the interests the West is pursuing may no longer be worth the risk of doing so. The consequence of not declaring these people to be enemies is that you have to work with them and listen to them, and thus accept they might have a lot to offer. Other countries will then make that same judgment, and the US will no longer be able to dupe them and lead them as the US has done to its friends again and again.

This is the underlying objection to Trump dealing with the Russians. The accusations about foreign interference in US elections are merely used to scare Americans about Russia. Befriending Russia is not in the interests of western Neocons.

Our gaffe, our rules

If you don’t want Russia interfering in your country, you can’t deal with India. If you buy Indian goods, the Russians have been part of making them, and your trade deal will lead to more Russian influence in creating more goods for that market. If you have diplomatic relations with India, you have to embrace its friendship with Russia to gain anything from those relations. If you get involved in India’s defence or energy sectors, you have to work with Russian hardware.

This is not to say that India is a hostage of Russia. This situation has developed precisely because hasn’t forced itself upon India. India pursued an independent foreign policy as an independent nation deserving a place at the top tables. What countries like Poland and Bulgaria sought to achieve by joining the EU, India achieved by doing what the West didn’t want, but the West knew it would want things from India later on. This relationship continues without complain from the anti-Russian West. The West has got enough out of it to maintain positive relations with India and keep it in check. But Russia has a longstanding ally and a continuing footprint in the region.

India has grown so much that it is now exporting software development to the Western countries which expected it to be a dependent former colony for a lot longer. But India can’t be seen to be getting away with bucking the geopolitical rules. The West can’t confront it directly, but it can confront its own politicians who try and counter the argument that the US, in order to be the world leader, must have perpetual enemies, and every country must be forced to be either with it or against it.

Trump is making enemies wherever he goes, and has taken his country’s geopolitical posturing to extremes with his travel ban on people fleeing countries the US is terrorizing. But he is also prepared to stop treating Russia as the enemy, and that won’t do for the Deep State which has seen what India has achieved through being treated as Trump is attempting to treat Russia.

If the West meant what it said about its “enemies” it would not allow India to consort with them. In reality, it is admitting that Russia as a friend through developing relations with India. If you want to see the hypocrisy of Western rhetoric against any nation which is no threat to anyone, see how much it has allowed Russia to help India, whilst being determined to keep it a special case.

Seth Ferris, investigative journalist and political scientist, expert on Middle Eastern affairs, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

___________________________________________________________________

 

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on So You Don’t Want the Russians Interfering Then “Why Trade With India?”

It Seems that everyone with a moral conscience is on the side of the Russians

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on It Seems that everyone with a moral conscience is on the side of the Russians

7 Secrets about the World – Revealed through Syrian War

Syria strategic culture foundationBy Chris Kanthan

Usually one has to read hundreds of books to fathom how the puppet masters of the world work, but once in a while, there is a single event that explains it all. The war in Syria is one of those. Understand the Syrian war, you’ll realize how pervasive propaganda is, how easy it is to manipulate people, how powerful the globalists are, how and why wars are manufactured, and how cynical and ruthless nations are. Let’s take a look at some of the revelations from the Syrian war.

Media all around the world are controlled by the same interests

In the U.S., six corporations control 85% of the media. However, in fact, they are all just one group of elites. Globally, pretty much all the corporate media now are controlled by the same interests. This is really hard for most people to digest. The war in Syria, however, made this very clear. With the exception of Russia’s RT, every influential newspaper and TV channel in the world has repeated the same propaganda, talking points, and the narratives with impeccable coordination. As an example, the fake story of the Aleppo boy was not only repeated all over the world, but was on the front page, on the same day, all over the world!

Media-Entertainment can peddle the biggest whoppers

Psychologically, it’s difficult for people to believe that every media outlet would lie. Don’t we live in a country with free media and amazing journalists and pundits? Well, it’s called the Overton Window – a narrow, strict boundary within which journalists can bravely discuss anything they want. Every MSM in the world lied – and still does – about Syria.

To start with, the media wouldn’t even think about revealing the geopolitical and financial reasons behind the Syrian war – Qatar oil/gas pipeline through Syria to Europe, Israel’s land and oil grab in Golan Heights, Saudi Arabia’s obsession with preventing a Shiite Crescent (Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon) etc.

The media’s job is to sell the war. To that end, they uniformly lied about Assad being unpopular, when separate polls by CNN and Zogby showed him as the most popular leader in the Arab world in 2009. They lied about how the protests started (it was engineered by CIA & Muslim Brotherhood) and who was fighting Assad (fact: there are no “moderate Syrian rebels” – the so-called “Islamic terrorists” are actually not real Islamists. They are foreign terrorists, Al Qaeda and ISIS, hired, supplied, and organized by western powers and given the false name of “Radical Islamists). But true Islam has no connection to them … much like churchgoers have no relationship to true Christianity.

The difference between Assad and the rebels can be summed up in this one picture that shows schools in areas controlled by Assad versus the “moderate rebels”:

A romanticized and fictitious story of peaceful people fighting Assad was peddled for six years (fact: the fighters had billions of dollars worth of sophisticated, lethal weapons). Once in a while, the New York Times or The Guardian would slip in the truth, but the lies always overwhelmed and drowned the truth.

Other arms of the globalists – Twitter, Netflix, HBO etc. – also made their own contributions to the insane propaganda and lies. US/UK governments gave $100 million to Al Qaeda and created a slick hoax called the White Helmets that even won an Oscar. Then there was Bana Alabed, the 7-year-old Syrian girl from Aleppo who could barely speak/understand English, but tweeted Neocon talking points with the perfect English of a NY Times reporter. She has a verified Twitter account that is followed by celebrities and world leaders, has been interviewed by every MSM, and now has a book deal. If you tell a big enough lie and keep repeating it, people will believe it.

Entire political establishment can lie about something

There are so many liberals who can’t even imagine for a moment that Obama and Hillary would have attacked Libya and Syria for anything other than humanitarian and noble reasons. Even Bernie Sanders supported both those wars. All these just show how strong the military-industrial complex and the globalists are. The only politician to speak the truth about US arming terrorists is Tulsi Gabbard, who introduced a bill that merely said that the U.S. should not support terrorists. Guess how many Congressmen support her? 13 out of 538. Rand Paul introduced the same bill in the Senate and hasn’t gotten a single co-sponsor so far.

Wars can be easily manufactured

If the media and the politicians are corrupt, the American people are naïve. They believe the myth of humanitarian wars and have no knowledge of history or geopolitics. How many Americans are aware of all the attempts by the U.S. Deep State since the 1950s to topple the government in Syria? They also don’t like to think critically. They see some pictures of dead children on TV, and they approve Trump bombing Syria. They don’t ask basic questions that would be required in a crime scene regarding evidence, expert analysis, motives, means and opportunity. (Here’s my article on why the alleged chemical attack is fake or false flag). It’s no wonder that America is in a perpetual state of war.

Any foreign leader can be demonized, any nation can be destroyed

The news and narratives we hear are entirely from the point of view of the US/Western establishment. That Assad might be a nice guy or is well-liked by his own people is just too shocking. It doesn’t even cross people’s minds that they should learn about or listen to a foreign leader. We just believe one-dimensional caricatures for foreign leaders, so the verdict against a foreign leader/country will always be guilty.

Wars can be a secret project of multiple nations

Syria is probably the first war in modern history when globalists used a joint project of multiple nations to wage a war. In this evil project of destruction:

  • the CIA used its base in Jordan to train the rebels; the US also sold billions of dollars of weapons to Al Qaeda and ISIS through the Gulf countries
  • Saudi Arabia and Qatar sent cash and American weapons to Turkey, which funneled them to terrorists within Syria
  • Turkey also invaded Syria and simply looted thousands of factories in Aleppo; later, Turkey, bought billions of dollars of stolen oil at a discount from ISIS and then sold it to Israel
  • Israel has been a silent partner, coordinating the war behind the scene, helping the rebels in Golan Heights, and very likely assisting ISIS as well
  • UK spent millions of dollars on Al Qaeda’s paramedics – White Helmets; UK also set up a satellite TV station in 2009 to broadcast anti-Assad programs
  • France bribed many Syrian generals and leaders and lured them to defect; France also gave money and weapons to Syrian terrorists

Islamic terrorists are proxy tools for the West (not real Muslims)

The extensive use of Islamic terrorists over the past six years to bring about regime change in Syria should shock the conscience of any American. The Mujahideen project never went away, and the Syrian war only proves that Islamic terrorists will continue to act as proxy warriors on behalf of the globalists. (You can read my article: “US and Allies Created, Funded, Armed ISIS”).

Conclusion

We have a ruthless, sophisticated and cunning system that thrives on conflicts and wars which, in turn, depend on a gullible population that simply consumes news and opinions fed by mass media and the politicians. If people truly understand the war on Syria, they’ll see the scam that’s being perpetrated. For further reference and reading materials on the Syrian war, here are some of my articles:

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on 7 Secrets about the World – Revealed through Syrian War

The World Is Going Down With Trump

Paul Craig Roberts

On June 21 the editorial board of the Washington Post, long a propaganda instrument believed to be in cahoots with the CIA and the deep state, called for more sanctions and more pressure on Russia.

One second’s thought is sufficient to realize how bad this advice is. The orchestrated demonization of Russia and its president began in the late summer of 2013 when the British Parliament and Russian diplomacy blocked the neoconned Obama regime’s planned invasion of Syria. An example had to be made of Russia before other countries began standing up to Washington. While the Russians were focused on the Sochi Olympic Games, Washington staged a coup in Ukraine, replacing the elected democratic government with a gang of Banderite neo-nazi thugs whose forebears fought for Hitler in World War II. Washington claimed it had brought democracy to Ukraine by putting neo-nazi thugs in control of the government.

Washington’s thugs immediately began violent attacks on the Russian population in Ukraine. Soviet war memorials were destroyed. The Russian language was declared banned from official use. Instantly, separatist movements began in the Russian parts of Ukraine that had been administratively attached to Ukraine by Soviet leaders. Crimea, a Russian province since the 1700s, voted overwhelmingly to seperate from Ukraine and requested to be reunited with Russia. The same occurred in the Luhansk and Donetsk regions.

These independent actions were misrepresented by Washington and the presstitutes who whore for Washington as a “Russian invasion.” Despite all facts to the contrary, this misrepresentation continues today. In US foreign policy, facts are not part of the analysis.

The most important fact that is overlooked by the Washington Post and the Russophobic members of the US government is that it is an act of insanity to call for more punishment and more pressure on a country with a powerful military and strategic nuclear capability whose military high command and government have already concluded that Washington is preparing a surprise nuclear attack.

Are the Washington Post editors trying to bring on nuclear armageddon? If there was any intelligence present in the Washington Post, the newspaper would be urging that President Trump immediately call President Putin with reassurances and arrange the necessary meetings to defuse the situation. Instead the utterly stupid editors urge actions that can only raise the level of tension. It should be obvious even to the Washington Post morons that Russia is not going to sit there, shaking in its boots, and wait for Washington’s attack. Putin has issued many warnings about the West’s rising threat to Russian security. He has said that Russia “will never again fight a war on its own territory.” He has said that the lesson he has learned is that “if a fight is unavoidable, strike first.” He has also said that the fact that no one hears his warnings makes the situation even more dangerous.

What explains the deafness of the West? The answer is arrogance and hubris.

As the presstitute media is incapable of reason, I will do their job for them. I call for an immediate face-to-face meeting between Trump and Putin at Reykjavik. Cold War II, begun by Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama, must be ended now.

So, where is President Trump? Why is the President of the United States unable to rise to the challenge? Why isn’t he the man Ronald Reagan was? Is it, as David Stockman says, that Trump is incapable of anything except tweeting? http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/47310.htm

Why hasn’t President Trump long ago ordered all intercepts of Russian chatter gathered, declassified, and made public? Why hasn’t Trump launched a criminal prosecution against John Brennan, Susan Rice, Comey, and the rest of the hit squad that is trying to destroy him?

Why has Trump disarmed himself with an administration chosen by Russiaphobes and Israel?

As David Stockman writes, Trump “is up against a Deep State/Dem/Neocon/mainstream media prosecution” and “has no chance of survival short of an aggressive offensive” against those working to destroy him. But there is no Trump offensive, “because the man is clueless about what he is doing in the White House and is being advised by a cacophonous coterie of amateurs and nincompoops. So he has no action plan except to impulsively reach for his Twitter account.”

Our president twitters while he and Earth itself are pushed toward destruction.

__________________________________________________________________

 

 

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on The World Is Going Down With Trump

We Have Met the Evil Empire and It is Us

Gordon Duff- 7-6-17

63452343242When I told my father, back in 1968, that I was joining the United States Marine Corps he responded: “I hope you aren’t going to claim you are doing this to defend your country. Nobody attacked us, look around, no Viet Cong here, this is Wall Street’s war like the last one and the one before it and the one before that.”

Everything my father predicted has come to pass, America as a deindustrialized police state with a clown in the White House, nothing new there. Anyone unaware that Eisenhower was a useless puppet as was Ford and Reagan and Bush 43 and the monstrosity we have now, deserves the America we now have. His generation, those who grew up before the First World War, those who experienced the Great Depression with eyes open, they knew it was coming.

Life in America was pure injustice, the lash and the iron boot, despite the version of history we have been given by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations who “re-invented” America and its history through taking control of public education in the late 1940s. You see, the multi-generational ignorance we bask in today is not unplanned. The threat represented by advances in communications and other technology was recognized and dealt with, utterly quashed at birth.

Why the “electoral college?” Few Americans know that the Senate was chosen, not elected, until the 20th century. Why two senators for states with no people? Why a Supreme Court?

There is nothing “democratic” about America and its government, the whole thing is a con. Election after election, every time Americans think they are voting to “drain the sewer” that Washington represents, only find themselves deeper in it. That was planned from the first also but we are getting ahead of ourselves a bit.

Today Americans are “defending democracy” in 6 dozen nations and, as predicted, invariably siding with tyrants, pushing a colonial agenda, there as bullies and thugs in uniform and doing so hiding behind the flag and the “honored dead.” I know this well because I was part of it.

When I served in Vietnam, there was no pretense that we were defending anything. Even in the elite combat unit I was in, the war itself was universally opposed as comic and absurd, it was impossible to miss. The Saigon government was beneath consideration, evil and corrupt, their military a useless pack of rabble compared to “the enemy,” the Viet Cong and NVA, relentless and highly motivated.

We were fighting people who were defending their country from foreign invaders, the real enemy, “us.” Nations around the world are now doing the exact same thing and, under Trump, seemingly more each day.

The title statement is an amended quote from a 1960s-comic strip by Walt Kelly, called Pogo. It was famous once, used continually in one form or another. However, when American lost its sense of humor and began taking itself seriously, most likely sometime in the 1980s, all history, all balance, and certainly all real humor was forgotten. This is a boorish place. Let me explain.

For those of us who were born during the “post war baby boom,” the absurdity of patriotic rhetoric in response to the “red menace” poisoned our lives, polluted our educational experience, sickened our souls.

Even then, the reality of a government controlled by Wall Street was there to be seen. Higher education was not affordable for all but the few, cities were dung heaps of filth and crime and America’s South was a land of starvation and poverty. Nearly half of all Americans lived in poverty while the industrial workers of the North worked under conditions that made survival to retirement a pipe dream.

Every day my father would return from the Ford factory, describing 120-degree heat and air steeped in carcinogenic solvents. His friends and coworkers died in their 50s. By age 55, he had suffered half a dozen heart attacks and was on disability of $60 a month to support a family of 4. This is a common story, not an exception, this is how my generation grew up, mowing lawns, shoveling snow for money for shoes, working to support a family as early as 10. This is the American generation that went to Vietnam and it was the generation that taught the Pentagon that their games would not continue unopposed.

Today it’s different. The public questions little, those in the military question nothing. When America’s invading armies in Iraq and Afghanistan, under bush never found WMDs or the massive underground terrorist fortresses Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld spoke of, what was the downside? Thousands of American military were killed over not just nothing but abject lies.

When billions in cash was stolen in both Iraq and Afghanistan, when 250,000 AK 47’s purchased by the US government for the Iraqi military simply disappeared, nobody saw it. When Haliburton Corporation furnished the US Army with drinking water taken unfiltered from the Euphrates River, one of the most polluted bodies of water on Earth, hundreds infected with Hepatitis and other diseases, nothing was said, certainly no congressional investigation but the Pentagon was silent as well. Also silent were the troops in the field, silent then and still silent.

This is a huge change from Vietnam when those who returned home told everything.

Then again, back in 1969, I was a Marine, not a “war fighter” or a “warrior.” I made $100 a month, not $8000, I was fed 400 calories a day, not 7000, I had no PlayStation, no $400 boots and didn’t buy my combat gear from online outfitters. The life expectancy in a line unit was 3 months and nobody did year after year in a rifle squad as part of the “professional army.”

You know, with all that expensive gear and all that war fighter rhetoric, we still are beaten just as easily by poor people with broken weapons, poor people defending themselves against a foreign invader.

That part hasn’t changed but back in 1969 we knew we had it coming. We still fought to survive but we never fought to win. Win what? Nobody asks that anymore. Nobody ever asks “why?”

_____________________________________________________________

 

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on We Have Met the Evil Empire and It is Us

Independent Journalists Reveal America’s Sinister War in Syria

By Tony Cartalucci

May 29, 2017 –  Syria is not experiencing a “civil war.” It is being targeted by both proxy and direct military force organized by the United States and its allies for the explicit purpose of dividing and destroying yet another Middle Eastern nation.

Worse than that, the United States is employing tactics to transform Syria’s heterogeneous multi-ethnic and religious communities into segregated ghettos, and using this as a means of dividing and conquering the nation and even the region.

The US is also widely employing the abhorrent tactics of socioeconomic, psychological, and armed terrorism to break the Syrian people completely and absolutely.

Unlike in Libya and Iraq, however, US plans in Syria have been confounded. And because of this, ample time has elapsed for independent journalists to travel to, record, and report what is actually transpiring versus the intentional, malicious, and continuous lies told by the West’s mainstream media.

One of these journalists is Patrick Henningsen of 21st Century Wire, whose recent trip to Syria had him cross paths and interview others frequently visiting and sharing their experiences and findings from the besieged nation.

The picture painted is one that cannot be ignored.

For those who have already decided to believe the Western media based on “activist accounts,” the accounts provided during a recent audio interview published by 21st Century Wire is at least as equally compelling. However, for those who truly desire to discover the truth, critical thought and additional research will reveal the latter to be telling a truth consistently and intentionally obfuscated by the Western media.

Imperialism’s Fingerprints: Weaponized Ethnic-Segregation

In an interview with British journalist Tom Duggan, the process of terrorists from internationally designated terror organizations like Jabhat Al Nusra and the so-called “Islamic State” targeting communities along sectarian lines is described. While the Western media has confirmed the sectarian nature of the ongoing conflict, what Duggan and Henningsen’s accounts reveal is that Syria was multi-ethnic, with communities enjoying integration and diversity based first on being Syrian, then based on their respective religious and ethnic identities, long before the conflict began.

Intermarriage and sociopolitical exchanges were common before the conflict, and only since 2011 has ethnic and religious tensions begun to expose fault lines within communities based solely on fear created and perpetuated by foreign-backed terrorist organizations like Al Nusra and the Islamic State.

Pointed out was the fact that both US foreign policy regarding Syria and Al Nusra and the Islamic State’s goals, both aim to see a Syria divided along sectarian lines.

While Al Nusra and the Islamic State attempt to cut Syria’s sectarian-diverse communities up literally with bullets and blades, the US has repeatedly presented multiple maps over several years of Syria divided into sectarian-based micro-states – effectively eliminating Syria as a functioning and unified nation-state. While the US omits the “secret ingredient” to make its fictional maps a reality, it is demonstrably clear that terrorist organizations are the ones on the ground attempting to draw these new maps.

Libya – besieged, divided, and destroyed by US-led NATO aggression in 2011 – has suffered a similar fate and currently exists as a cautionary example of what may become of Syria should US plans succeed. Libya will no longer contest US special interests geopolitically or otherwise in its current form as a failed, divided, and destroyed state.

The premeditated and systematic nature of this attempted division and destruction of Syria matches verbatim the tactics employed for centuries by the British Empire – and before that – the Roman Empire.

It is a fundamental tactic not of humanitarian-motivated interventionists, but of imperialists. The crass nature of these tactics – simultaneously promoted by the West and designated terrorist organizations – explains why the Western media has attempted to portray Syria as ethnically and religiously divided before the conflict began, rather than as a process of intentional division and destruction unfolding as part of US foreign policy.

Similar tactics have been employed in Iraq as well, with much greater success. And even as far as Thailand in Southeast Asia, the groundwork is being laid for similar tactics to be employed to divide and weaken states targeted by Washington for regime change – highlighting the global nature of America’s neo-imperial proclivities.

Daily Terrorism Carried Out By “Rebels,” Not Against Them 

While the Western media has flooded headlines for years regarding the alleged atrocities carried out by the Syrian government and its allies against so-called “moderate rebels,” it has muted coverage of atrocities committed in turn by militants fighting the Syrian government and its people. These accounts are muted, because while they are technically “reported,” the obvious nature of these atrocities is often glossed over – sometimes even spun or lionized – rather than presented in a the same straightforward manner accusations against Damascus are.

During Henningsen’s interview with Duggan, the destructive and indiscriminate nature of improvised artillery systems used by terrorists in Syria was described. The narrative is one that equals any tale of “barrel bombs” employed by the Syrian government – perhaps even surpassing them – because while the Western media claims the Syrian government is using helicopters to drop ordnance into areas using direct line of sight, improvised artillery used by terrorists called “hell cannons” do not have direct line of sight to their targets.

This means that those using hell cannons have no way of knowing who, or even what they are hitting. They are blindly firing canisters full of deadly shrapnel – according to Western reports – up to a mile away.

The Daily Mail would describe the hell cannon as:

Firing improvised explosives with a range of around a mile, this is the homemade weapon of choice of the Free Syrian Army known as the ‘hell cannon’.

The cannon has been widely used during the conflict in besieged cities such as Aleppo and usually fires out highly modified propane gas cylinders. 

The hell cannon could only ever be used as an absolutely indiscriminate weapon. With no way to reliably aim it, and no way to know definitively where rounds are landing, the result is predictable mayhem brought upon government forces and innocent civilians alike. With the vast majority of those living down range from the terrorists’ hell cannons being civilians, not soldiers, the likelihood of innocent people being maimed or killed by them is much higher.

For average readers of reports like the Daily Mail’s, “Syrian rebels strike back with the HELL CANNON: Aleppo fighters build devastating homemade weapon that shoots propane gas cylinders,” five minutes of critical thought will lead them to this conclusion.

Those operating among the West’s media – trained in journalism and in reporting events – when writing articles like those appearing in the Daily Mail, are thus making the conscious decision to intentionally, maliciously, and continuously lie regarding the methods and means used by terrorists they repeatedly refer to as “moderate rebels.” The double standards illustrated by the Daily Mail alone regarding “barrel bombs” versus “hell cannons” indicates concerted and serial attempts to misinform audiences and manipulate public perception.

Similar revelations are revealed during Henningsen’s interview with Duggan regarding the terrorists’ use of hospitals, schools, and mosques as military centers – knowing full well that any attempt by Damascus and its allies to target them would be politically exploited by their Western sponsors both from behind the podiums of public offices and within press rooms across the West.

Perhaps most ironic of all – is that US operations in Syria allegedly targeting terrorists, when hospitals, schools, and mosques are hit – produce admissions from across the Western media that – indeed – terrorists are using such facilities as military bases – admissions the Western media refused to make during the Syrian government’s operations to retake cities like Homs, Hama, and Aleppo.

Keeping an Open Mind

For those attempting to make sense of Syria’s ongoing conflict, or any other conflict being reported on by the Western media – the deep and concerted conspiracy that surrounded the US invasion of Iraq in 2003 alone should provide pause for thought before unquestioningly believing narratives produced from these same collection of Western media sources regarding other conflicts.

There are alternative organizations and media platforms operating in Syria, producing videos, audio interviews, and pages of information on a daily basis giving alternative insight into the conflict that people around the world can watch, listen to, and read. While no one is bound to believe Western or alternative narratives – for those genuinely pursing the truth – both need to be considered, researched, and vetted factually, rationally, and within a historical and logical context.

Narratives of a “humanitarian” motivated West seeking to end conflict and bring a brighter future to Syria simply does not add up in any context.

The special interests promoting regime change in Syria have a decades-long track record of deceiving the public, dividing and destroying nations, and leaving a path of destruction cutting across entire regions of the planet. While Western audiences are tempted to believe Western narratives regarding Syria in pursuit of US-backed regime change, nations like Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine smolder in the ruination of Western military intervention. By adding up the big picture, it is clear that alternative media sources are providing invaluable insight into global conflict the Western media has systematically and intentionally covered up for years.

Shifting in the minds of the global public the perceived reputation of Western media organizations versus their demonstrated serial deceptions is the first step toward truly ending conflicts like that raging in Syria, and truly bringing peace and a better future to the people trapped within these conflicts.

_______________________________________________________________

 

 

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Independent Journalists Reveal America’s Sinister War in Syria

When Will Washington Quit the Business of Killing Syria’s Civilians

Martin Berger 3-5-2017

56234234It’s hardly a secret that through a series of actions in Syria, Washington is provoking an ever increasing frustration across the international community. The civilian death toll resulting from US attacks is simply shocking. But somehow nobody is speaking about the material damage that is being inflicted upon the infrastructure of Syria, as both public and private property is being subjected to indiscriminate bombing which results in the escalation of chaos that only beneficial to such terrorist groups as Jabhat al-Nusra and the Islamic State (ISIS).

 

 

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on When Will Washington Quit the Business of Killing Syria’s Civilians

Egyptian President Calls Out Trump And Saudi Arabia For Aiding And Abetting Terrorism

By Isaac Davis

Speaking at the high-profile Arab Islamic American Summit in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, president of Egypt Abdel Fattah el-Sisi made comments directly to Mr. Trump and Saudi King Salman, which in effect call out Saudi Arabia and the United States for supporting international terrorism and contributing to its proliferation. A fact that is extremely relevant under the completion of another massive arms deal between the two nations.

His translated comments, as presented before President Trump and Saudi King Salman at the summit, are transcribed below:

Comprehensive counter terrorism means confronting all terrorist organizations without differentiation. It is not possible to reduce the confrontation to a terrorist organization or two. Who provides terrorists with media and financial support is a partner in their crimes. The criminal is not only the militant, but also those who finance, train and arm them. And provides them with political and ideological cover.

Let me ask you frankly: Where are the safe havens to train these terrorists? And medical treatment of injured terrorists? The replacement of military equipment and militants? Who buys from them the natural materials that they control, such as the oil? Who colludes with them in trading archaeological monuments and drugs, from where they get financial support? And how do they get media support by media outlets acting as mouthpieces of the terrorist organizations?

Anyone who does this is a genuine partner in terrorism. Unfortunately, there are countries that have been involved in supporting and financing terrorist organizations, and providing safe havens for them. There are also countries that refuse to provide intelligence information and database on foreign fighters, even with INTERPOL. ~Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi

El-Sisi is not alone with his subtly veiled allegations that terrorism would not be possible without the material and financial support of Western nations and Middle East super powers. Ron Paul has pointed this out, and Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has even introduced legislation to stop funding terrorist organizations such as ISIS.

Russian President Putin has also said as much in public, outing ISIS’s G20 financiers, yet astoundingly the message does not seem to have gone mainstream, and Western media still maintains that ISIS is an organic phenomenon.

Some of President Trump’s comments at the summit are a signal that nothing will change, as he is still framing this issue in the simplest of terms, good vs. evil, without giving heed to the full breadth of the complicated story of how international terrorism was created and is sustained by the major geo-political players today.

________________________________________________________________

 

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on Egyptian President Calls Out Trump And Saudi Arabia For Aiding And Abetting Terrorism

The Digital Revolution Is A Catastrophe

May 12, 2017 – Paul Craig Roberts

Why did the US National Security Agency develope a hacking tool to install malware? Why is the US Security agency so incompetent that it could not prevent itself from being hacked and the tool stolen and used against 12 countries?

The digital revolution is proving to be a nightmare. The digital revolution has destroyed privacy and has made all information and all persons insecure.

The costs of the digital revolution exceed its benefits by many times. The digital revolution rivals nuclear weapons as the most catastrophic technology of our time.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/world/europe/uk-national-health-service-cyberattack.html?emc=edit_na_20170512&nl=breaking-news&nlid=31655120&ref=cta&_r=1

_____________________________________________________________

 

 

 

Posted in Articles | Comments Off on The Digital Revolution Is A Catastrophe