Pelosi Prepares ‘Second Pivot’ of Regime Change in the United States

Pelosi Prepares ‘Second Pivot’ of Regime Change in the United States

JAMES GEORGE JATRAS | 10.11.2018 |

Pelosi Prepares ‘Second Pivot’ of Regime Change in the United States

The votes were barely counted before US President Donald Trump fired his Attorney General Jeff Sessions and began to prepare a showdown with the Deep State’s effort to dethrone him. As Patrick Buchanan describes the stakes:

‘For two years, Trump has been under a cloud of unproven allegations and suspicion that he and top campaign officials colluded with Vladimir Putin’s Russia to thieve and publish the emails of the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.

‘It is past time for Mueller to prove these charges or concede he has a busted flush, wrap up his investigation and go home.

‘And now, in T.S. Eliot’s words, Trump appears to have found “the strength to force the moment to its crisis.”

‘His attitude toward Mueller’s probe is taking on the aspect of Andrew Jackson’s attitude toward Nicholas Biddle’s Second Bank of the United States: It’s “trying to kill me, but I will kill it.”’

But oh wait – the votes aren’t counted yet. In Arizona and, more dangerously, in Florida votes from Democratic precincts seemingly have appeared out of thin air to deny the Republicans additional seats in the Senate. (The governors’ races in Florida and Georgia drag on as well, with Trump mockingly suggesting it’s the Russians’ fault.) In any US election now the side favoring the historic American nation must win big enough to overcome the growing, built-in advantage of an unknown number of illegal votes cast by non-citizens. But even that’s not enough of a handicap, so the Evil Party of Certified Victims also gets to trot out for days and even weeks after election day however many provisional ballots, mail-in ballots, absentee ballots, and any other verkackte concoctions they can. It’s the business end of multiplying measures supposedly designed to “increase voter participation,” like automatic registration, same-day registration, online registration, and at-home voting, the cumulative impact (and no doubt intent) of which is not-quite knowing who’s voting or how often – an old tradition of the Democratic Party. Above all, no ballot security measures can be implemented to require proof of citizenship to vote, as that clearly would be “voter suppression” and, it hardly needs to be added, racist (though demanding documentation of citizenship seems to work just fine in Mexico).

Trimming Trump’s Senate advantage might be the least of his worries, though. Since he took office it’s been clear that large parts of the Executive Branch – nominally under his total control – are instead part of the so-called “Resistance” dedicated to removing him. Most dangerously, this includes much of the Department of Justice and the intelligence agencies. (One can almost hear an audible sigh of relief from the rogues’ gallery of criminal conspirators behind the phony Russiagate collusion story cooked up in the bowels of the US-UK Deep State with the aim of overturning the 2016 election. Now, after two years of the GOP’s dithering in the area of investigations and hearings relevant to how the Trump campaign was put under politically motivated surveillance, those peccadilloes will be forever buried.) The Resistance also includes most of the judiciary, which can be counted on immediately to block any use of Trump’s Executive authority individual judges don’t like, even uses within his plenary Constitutional power, like command of the armed forces (for defending the US? No!) or immigration and border enforcement. Finally, a Senate Democratic block has existed in what is erroneously referred to as the filibuster, with which the GOP majority could dispense with but won’t.

Now, however, with House of Representatives flipped, we are about to see the consolidation in all three branches of what amounts to a rival government under incoming Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Gathering all resistance forces to herself Sauron-like as the focus of rival authority to Trump, she will hope first to render him powerless, then eliminate him. Accordingly, we can be sure that, both with the media’s active complicity and via direct leaks, the House will receive a steady stream of confidential, politically valuable information from within the administration; collusion with the courts to further nullify Trump’s actions will be standard operating procedure.

It’s important to understand that the division of power confronting America in January 2019 will not be the usual circumstance of government divided on a partisan basis, “checks and balances,” “gridlock,” and all that sort of thing familiar from our history but the next phase of a second American civil war (or third, if we count Patriots vs. Loyalists during the War for Independence). Pelosi will lead the next revolutionary phase in which one part of the apparatus of government becomes what Alexander Shtromas called “the Second Pivot,” an alternative, opposing source of official power.

(Contrary to the Marxist myth, revolutions happen not when “The People” rise up spontaneously in righteous anger but when some part of the ruling establishment defects to the revolt (or “Resistance”) and becomes the new conferrer of legitimacy. There are obvious historical examples: Parliament in the English Civil War, the Third Estate’s declaring itself the National Assembly of France, the Petrograd Soviet’s coup against the Provisional Government, Boris Yeltsin’s Russian government when Mikhail Gorbachev’s Soviet government was under threat of the State Committee on the State of Emergency (itself an aspiring second pivot that failed), and the communist cabals in the various Warsaw Pact countries that ousted little Brezhnevs and installed little Gorbachevs.)

In seeking to overthrow the constitutionally elected president who was himself an insurgent against the cozy duopoly in Washington, it might seem the Democrats and their GOP “Never Trump” fellow travelers are actually the counterrevolutionaries against the populist “revolution” two years ago. However true that observation might be in a mechanical sense, it fails to encompass the anti-American, revolutionary – indeed, Leninist – substance of the party that has just captured the House.

Like the bush-league Bolshies they are, the Democrats have already dropped the sotto voce tone they adopted during the closing weeks of the campaign concerning impeaching Trump and now are “all-in” to get rid of him. In doing so, not only can they guarantee the perpetual dominance of their replacement voting bloc, the GOP establishment can purge the Republican party of Trump populism and – dare we say the word! – nationalism once and for all while happily settling in as a permanent, pampered minority with a share of the spoils.

An early test will be if Trump can resist calls for acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to recuse himself from the Mueller probe as Sessions had, leaving in charge Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein – the fox watching the henhouse. Mueller is widely expected to wrap up before the end of the year and he’ll look for some additional scalps to hang to the wall to justify his existence. But the Democrats, now that they’ve taken the House, are more anxious to get on to other things that they can use to justify impeachment. This will of course not be found in any phony Russian collusion (the Democrats will play out the hand, just to keep their base on the edge of hysteria) but the real meat and potatoes will be elsewhere: Trump’s tax returns and his business life back in New York. Contrary to most assurances that a Republican Senate guarantees Trump’s survival, take note that it was Richard Nixon’s own party that threw him to the wolves.

In two months the Second Pivot under Pelosi will rapidly become a state-within-a-state, a Petrograd Soviet at one end of Pennsylvania Avenue, with a Provisional Government – alas, that’s all it is – headed by Trump at the other end. Hopefully the rivalry between them will not turn out as bloody as the one in Russia a century ago. But in terms of the gulf in values and identity that separates the two sides, it is no less of another phase of a civil war, a cold one – for the time being.

In any case, the country those of us of middle age grew up in is gone. The question now is what comes next: consolidation of a restored American order or some sort of collapse?

 

Advertisements

Written in History: The Death of America’s Hyper-Power Fantasy

Written in History: The Death of America’s Hyper-Power Fantasy

07.11.2018

Written in History: The Death of America’s Hyper-Power Fantasy

In 1987, Paul Kennedy, a British professor of history at Yale University, unleashed a political and intellectual firestorm with the publication of his great (677-page) book, “The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.” Kennedy produced a magisterial overview of the competition for global power over the past 500 years from 1500 AD to the present.

Kennedy proposed the thesis that any power that achieved, imagined it had achieved or sought to achieve and maintain a dominant hyper-power role of global dominance was doomed to lose it and then rapidly decline in overall power, wealth, prosperity and influence.

Kennedy argued – with a wealth of detail drawn from different nations over his vast period of half a millennium – that the very attempt to achieve and maintain such power forced every nation that attempted it into a ruinous pattern of strategic overstretch.

This demanded every major global empire in their turn to devote ruinously far too many economic resources to unproductive military power and ever more costly global commitments and conflicts.

The more ambitious the commitments, the quicker came military defeat, economic ruin and national collapse, Kennedy documented.

Kennedy published his book however at exactly the wrong moment for its abundantly documented conclusions and arguments to be taken seriously in the United States. The Cold War was just ending. The heroic actions of the Russian people in rejecting communism and leading in the dismantling of the Soviet Union were being misinterpreted as an eternal and lasting victory for the United States and for the forces of free market capitalism and minimum government regulation.

Kennedy was therefore subjected to a furious firestorm of abuse, especially from the emerging neoconservatives who under President George W Bush succeeded in imposing their reckless policies on nations across the Middle East and Eurasia. Kennedy, unlike his enraged critics was a gracious and tolerant gentleman as well as great scholar and took the firestorm in his stride.

Now more than 30 years after Kennedy published his great work, we can see how prescient, wise and visionary it truly was.

In 2016 President Donald Trump was elected on a platform of dealing with domestic crises raging from economic ruin and impoverishment to an out of control drug and opioid abuse epidemic and the collapse of law and order across the long US land border with Mexico.

That outcome provided telling testimony to the previous US policies of wasting at least $2 trillion on entirely unsuccessful nation-building and government-toppling projects ranging from Iraq to Afghanistan and since extended into such nations as Ukraine, Syria, and Libya

All the national pathologies of bankruptcy, exhaustion, decline and ever spreading human misery that Kennedy in his book traced in previous empires can now be clearly delineated in the policies of the post-Cold War United States.

The bottom line lesson to be drawn from Kennedy’s great book that so outraged neoconservatives at the time was a simple and stunning clear one: Unipolar Moments are just that and nothing more. They last for moments not ages.

Instead, the very attempt to maintain a unipolar moment of apparent global supremacy by any power automatically instead will raise up a host of challenges to that power that will rapidly exhaust and then doom it.

Kennedy traced this process of inexorable over – commitment and decline in 17th century Habsburg Spain. He followed it again in 18th century Bourbon France. He documented it once more in the rise, pride and inevitable fall of the British Empire and in the rash German attempts to create dominant global empires in both world wars of the 20th century.

A generation before Kennedy published his great work, British historian Correlli Barnett, focusing only on the British Empire, published in 1972 his own classic “The Collapse of British Power.” Barnett focused on a one, single unipolar moment – the 1920s and 1930s when the British ruling class, like their American successors today imagined that they were the divinely-appointed global policeman charged by Providence with maintaining their own conceptions of right and wrong over the whole world.

The British at least were reluctantly forced to cede independence to their vast global territories. It is doubtful whether the American people will be so lucky: The US Deep State establishment and their tame, unthinking media puppets remain blindly committed to inflexible expansion, conflict and strategic gambling with the peace and even survival of the world.

Thirty years after his magnum opus was published, Paul Kennedy’s message of warning remains unheeded. America’s Unipolar Moment is long since dead and gone. America’s pretensions to rule supreme as the world’s unchallenged hyper-power have become a dangerous and unsustainable fantasy.

A wakening to sanity is long overdue and the hour is late: National catastrophe can be the only other outcome.

الانقسام السياسي والتحذير من صعود الفاشية في أميركا

04 تشرين ثاني 15:53

 

رجالات المؤسسة الأمنية الأميركية أيضا يحملون مسؤولية التدهور الأمني لخطاب الرئيس ترامب الشعبوي والمفرط في السطحية. استضاف معهد الأمن القومي التابع لكلية الحقوق في جامعة جورج مايسون، بضواحي العاصمة واشنطن، جلسة حوارية مطلع الشهر الجاري حول “التهديدات والتحديات أمام المؤسسات الديموقراطية،” شارك فيها المدير السابق للاستخبارات الوطنية، جيمس كلابر، ومدير السي آي ايه الأسبق، مايكل هايدن. كلابر كأن أحد أهداف الطرود المتفجرة.

الحزب الجمهوري على أتم الجهوزية ليتحول إلى نسخة أميركية عن حزب (العدالة والقانون) البولندي الحاكم، مستغلاً نفوذه السياسي" الواسع

الحزب الجمهوري على أتم الجهوزية ليتحول إلى نسخة أميركية عن حزب (العدالة والقانون) البولندي الحاكم، مستغلاً نفوذه السياسي” الواسع

تمر أميركا بحالة استقطاب “غير مسبوقة منذ عدة عقود” بمطالبة الحزبين مؤيديهما من الناخبين بأوسع مشاركة في جولة الانتخابات التشريعية (النصفية) وبعض مناصب حكام الولايات: الحزب الجمهوري أرخى العنان للرئيس ترامب للمشاركة في الحملات الانتخابية مطلقاً وعوده وتهديداته في اتجاهات متعددة، والحزب الديموقراطي لا يزال خطابه حبيس هواجسه العدائية لروسيا علّها تنقذ إخفاقاته السياسية في التصدي الفاعل لسياسات الرئيس ترامب. أما جمهور الناخبين فيمضي لحشد وتنظيم معارضته للسياسات الإقصائية متوعداً بمعاقبة قاسية للطبقة الحاكمة في صناديق الاقتراع. بيد أن الجمهور الأميركي، بشكل عام، أرسل رسالة مدوية لصناع القرار حول حقيقة الخطر والتهديد القائم، وضاق ذرعاً بعد تعرض زبائن مطعم محلي في فلوريدا لحادث اطلاق نار دون مقدمات.

وكشفت يومية بوليتيكو، وهي نشرة محسوبة على تيار يمين الوسط الأميركي، عن نتائج استطلاع رأي فور وقوع الحادثة المشار اليها جاء فيه أن “58% من الناخبين اعتبروا ما جرى بأنه عنف سياسي،” توزعت النسبة على ذوي الميول للحزبين الديموقراطي والجمهوري، وحمّلت أغلبية من الناخبين “56% منهم المسؤولية للرئيس ترامب،” لاستنهاضه خطاب العداء والإقصاء وانقسام المجتمع وخرق الاتفاقيات الدولية مما عاد بالعزلة على الولايات المتحدة.

النائبة عن الحزب الديموقراطي، ماكسين ووترز، والتي كانت أحد أهداف الطرود المتفجرة، حفزت جمهور مؤيديها على “مواجهة أي مسؤول من الإدارة قد يرتاد مطعماً أو متجراً أو محطة وقود، ومحاصرته بحلقة من مؤيدين يتواجدون في المكان وإبلاغه رسالة مفادها أنه غير مرحب به في اي مكان بعد الآن.” أما الرئيس ترامب فقد أشاد بتوجيه نائب عن الحزب الجمهوري لكمة مباشرة لصحافي معتبراً التصرف نموذجاً “يمثلني.”

المؤسسة الإعلامية الأكبر، وهي شبكة سي أن أن للتلفزة، التي يكن لها الرئيس ترامب عداءً يردده في كل مناسبة ومن دون مناسبة، علقت في أحدى نشراتها الإخبارية على أحداث العنف السياسي بالقول إن “الرجل الأبيض” المدجج بالسلاح يشكل أكبر تهديد إرهابي على الولايات المتحدة، ووجهت النقد للجهات الرسمية لعدم “فرضها حظراً على الرجل الأبيض” المسلح.

رجالات المؤسسة الأمنية الأميركية أيضا يحملون مسؤولية التدهور الأمني لخطاب الرئيس ترامب الشعبوي والمفرط في السطحية.

استضاف معهد الأمن القومي التابع لكلية الحقوق في جامعة جورج مايسون، بضواحي العاصمة واشنطن، جلسة حوارية مطلع الشهر الجاري حول “التهديدات والتحديات أمام المؤسسات الديموقراطية،” شارك فيها المدير السابق للاستخبارات الوطنية، جيمس كلابر، ومدير السي آي ايه الأسبق، مايكل هايدن. كلابر كأن أحد أهداف الطرود المتفجرة.

كلابر حمل الرئيس ترامب المسؤولية المباشرة عن تنامي أحداث العنف “نظراً لأن مفردات خطابه لها دور مباشر في تجسيد نزعة التطرف .. وهي ليست بعيدة عما خبرته في التعامل مع تنظيمات مشابهة كداعش، الذي أتقن استخدام وسائل التواصل الاجتماعي لتجنيد عناصره،” في إشارة واضحة لمواقع التواصل التي تروج للخطاب العنصري والشعارات النازية في الداخل الأميركي.

وأضاف ساخراً من الرئيس ترامب “..استمرار العبقري المتزن في استنهاض نزعات من شأنها تأييد هذا النمط من التصرف، تقود إلى أننا مقبلون على تلقي مزيد من ذلك، وانا مقتنع بما أقول”.

هايدن في مداخلته شاطر زميله كلابر واستنتاجاته التي ذهب إليها في “.. تطابق مطالب المتشددين مع خطاب ينسجه رئيس الولايات المتحدة.”

الدوائر الرسمية والمسؤولون الأميركيون شديدوا الحرص على نفي وجود ظاهرة الفاشية في المجتمع، بخلاف بعض النخب والمفكرين البارزين.

وزيرة الخارجية الأميركية السابقة، مادلين اولبرايت، اصدرت كتاباً منتصف الصيف الماضي بعنوان مثير ومباشر الفاشية: تحذير، باللغتين الانكليزية والألمانية في وقت واحد، استعرضت فيه مراحل صعود الظاهرة وأفولها في اوروبا في القرن العشرين، كتيار سياسي مؤثر يتمتع بدعم شعبي داخل عدد من الدول الغربية بما فيها “بريطانيا والولايات المتحدة نفسها؛” محذرة من عودة الحركة الفاشية لسابق عهدها، وأنه “.. ليس هناك ما يمنع تدحرج الأمور مجدداً إلى تلك الهوة المظلمة.” ووصفت الرئيس ترامب وما يمثله بأنه “أول رئيس معادٍ للديموقراطية في التاريخ الأميركي بأكمله.”
تحذيرات اولبرايت وآخرين لها ما يدعمها من وقائع حية في مجمل الدول الغربية أبرزها “الانقسامات وحالات الاستقطاب .. وتفاوت الفرص والمنافع الاقتصادية دون أفق لتقليصها حتى على المدى المتوسط.” وشددت في تحذيرها على صعود “السياسيين الشعبويين إلى مواقع السلطة” وخطابهم المؤثر “عبر التلاعب والخداع” وتوجيه الأنظار نحو “عدو متخيل” دون التقدم بحلول حقيقية للأزمات البنيوية.

لهجة التحذير المشار إليها أخذت بعين الاعتبار صعود رمز “ومبشر الفاشية” في الإدارة الأميركية، ستيف بانون، الذي احتفظ بلقب “مستشار رئاسي للشؤون الاستراتيجية؛” ومضى لنشر افكاره في أوروبا، بعد اعفائه من منصبه في البيت الأبيض، عبر مؤسسة سياسية وفكرية، أسماها “الحركة،” ترمي لإطلاق ثورة شعبوية يمينية حاضنتها الاحزاب اليمينية الراديكالية، لتشجيع اليمين المتطرف في اوروبا الوصول إلى مراكز السلطة، كانت أولى ثمارها صعود رئيس وزراء يميني في ايطاليا، جوزيبي كونتي.

التحذير من صعود الفاشية الأميركية تناوله الخبير الاقتصادي الحائز على جائزة نوبل، بول كروغمان، في مقال نشره في يومية نيويورك تايمز، منتصف أيلول/ سبتمبر 2018، قائلا “..إن الحزب الجمهوري على أتم الجهوزية ليتحول إلى نسخة أميركية عن حزب (العدالة والقانون) البولندي الحاكم، مستغلاً نفوذه السياسي” الواسع. وأوضح أن الولايات المتحدة في نسختها السياسية الراهنة “.. تعاني من نفس الأعراض العنصرية البيضاء التي تجتاح العالم، والذي استطاع تدمير الديموقراطية في دول غربية أخرى، ونحن قريبون من نقطة اللاعودة.”

التحذير جاء أيضاً على لسان أحد أبرز “مفكري” المحافظين الجدد من اليمين الأميركي، روبرت كاغان، في غمرة حملات الانتخابات الرئاسية الماضية قائلاً “.. الحركات الفاشية لا تتجسد في فراغ ما لم تتوفر لها ايديولوجية متماسكة .. الفاشية لا تنجح (بالبرامج) السياسية فحسب، بل في التفافها حول رجل قوي، باستطاعته التغلب على أي تهديد دون الاضطرار إلى شرح كيف يتم ذلك.” (واشنطن بوست، 18 أيار/مايو 2016)
لعل السؤال المنطقي عند هذا المفصل يتمحور حول مدى “تجاوب” وتناغم مرشحي الانتخابات النصفية مع الخطاب الفاشي. في زمن وفرة المعلومات وآليات التدقيق الفوري لا يستعصى على المرء استكشاف تصريحات متعددة لمرشحين “عن الحزب الجمهوري” تفوح منها العنصرية وتمجد “العنصر الأبيض.”

أحدهم مرشح لمقعد نيابي عن ولاية كارولينا الشمالية، راسل ووكر، أعلن أنه “لا ضير في أن يكون المرء عنصريا.” (الوكالة الفرنسية، 30 تموز/يوليو 2018). ولعل ما يضاعف منسوب القلق حضور المرشح الجمهوري عن ولاية ويسكونسن، بول نيلن، والذي من المتوقع أن يتسلم منصب رئيس مجلس النواب خلفاً لسلفه المتقاعد عن الولاية عينها، بول رايان، في حال احتفظ الحزب الجمهوري بأغلبية مقاعد مجلس النواب.

نيلن يصنفوه مؤيدوه ومناوئيه على السواء بأنه ركن موثوق لتيار اليمين المتطرف – اليمين البديل، ينتظر ممارسة دوره القيادي ليمنح امتيازات عالية “للقوميين البيض” وتعيينهم في مناصب سياسية وثقافية حساسة. المرشح الجمهوري لعضوية مجلس الشيوخ عن ولاية فرجينيا، كوري ستيوارت، أثنى على زميله نيلن ووصفه بأنه “أحد ابطالي الشخصيين.” تزامن تقييم توجهات (نيلن) العنصرية مع ارتفاع معدل حوادث استدعاء الشرطة من قبل “اميركيين بيض .. يشتكون فيها من حضور أفراد ذوي بشرة داكنة” وهم يقومون بأداء اعمال اعتيادية، أدت في إحدى +المناسبات إلى اقتياد الشرطة لشابين أسودين مكبلين بالسلاسل من داخل مقهى “ستاربكس” كان يجلسان فيه بوضعية عادية

علماء الاجتماع الأميركي مولعون بنظرية “ستراس – هاو العابرة للأجيال” لتعقب الازمات والتكهن بالمستقبل؛ والتي ترتكز على فرضية أن التاريخ البشري يتحرك وفق أربع “حقبات متتالية” تشكل دائرة كاملة من التطور. ما يهمنا في هذا الشأن “الحلقة الرابعة،” والتي توصف بحقبة الأزمات من خصائصها انتشار “.. الفوضى السياسية، الانقسام، التآكل الاجتماعي والاقتصادي” مما يحفز فئات المجتمع الأميركي على التغول والتطرف. أما نهاية “الأزمة” لن تتأتى إلا بعد نشوب نزاع شامل يؤدي بالأميركيين إلى التوحد “اضطراريا” وبناء مستقبل أفضل

حالة الانقسام الحادة والتطرف المنتشرة في مناخ الانتخابات “النصفية” لها ما يبررها وفق النظرية أعلاه. فالمتشددون على جانبي التجاذب السياسي سيرفضون بقوة نتائج الانتخابات، خاصة وان الاتهامات بالتزوير لاحت بوادرها منذ الساعات الاولى لتطبيق “التصويت المبكر،” في عدد من الدوائر الانتخابية. وكلما كانت النتائج النهائية متقاربة بين الفريقين ستتعزز فرص اندلاع العنف والاقصاء تحصد ضحايا جدد من كافة الفئات الاجتماعية والتوجهات السياسية.


A senior Russian diplomat confirms: “Russia is preparing for war” – is anybody listening?

The Saker

November 02, 2018

[This analysis was written for the Unz Review]A senior Russian diplomat confirms: “Russia is preparing for war” – is anybody listening?

Andrei Belousov, deputy director of the Russian Foreign Ministry’s Department of Nonproliferation and Arms Control, has recently made an important statement which I shall quote in full and then provide a translation.

Original Russian text: “Тут недавно на заседании Соединенные Штаты заявили, что Россия готовится к войне. Да, Россия готовится к войне, я это подтверждаю. Да, мы готовимся защищать нашу родину, нашу территориальную целостность, наши принципы, наших людей. Мы готовимся к такой войне. Но у нас есть серьезные отличия от Соединенных Штатов Америки. И в лингвистическом плане это отличие заключается всего в одном слове, что в русском языке, что в английском языке: Российская Федерация готовится к войне, а Соединенные Штаты Америки готовят войну”

Translation: “Recently at a meeting the United States stated that Russia is preparing for war. Yes, Russia is preparing for war, I can confirm it.  Yes, we are preparing to defend our homeland, our territorial integrity, our principles, our values, our people. We are preparing for such a war.  But there is a major difference between us and the United States.  Linguistically, this difference is just in one word, in both Russian and English: Russia is preparing for war while the United States is preparing a war” (emphasis added).

We are so used to western diplomats and politicians saying more or less anything and everything (as the joke goes: when do you know that a politician is lying? When his lips move) that many of us stopped paying attention to what is being said. If tomorrow Trump or some “Congressperson” goes on national TV and declares “read my lips – up is down, dry is wet and yes means no” – most of us will just ignore it. The truth is that being exposed to that constant stream of empty, bombastic and always dishonest statements makes most of us immune to verbal warnings, even when they come from non-western political figures.

It is, therefore, crucial to fully realize that Russian official and diplomats carefully measure every word they say and that when they repeat over and over again that Russia is ready for war, they actually and truly mean it!

Of course, there have been those in the West who fully saw this danger and have been warning about it for years, I especially think of Prof. Stephen Cohen and Paul Craig Roberts here.  And I have been warning about this for four years now, beginning with the article “Obama just made things much, much worse in the Ukraine – now Russia is ready for war” posted on March 1st, 2014, followed by many more articles with the same warning since (see “The Russian response to a double declaration of war” on September 27th, 2014; “Did Russia just “gently” threaten the USA?” on November 12th, 2015; “Debunking popular clichés about modern warfare” on May 19th, 2016; “How Russia is preparing for WWIII” on May 26, 2016; “A Russian warning” on June 1st 2016; “Assessing the Russian Military as an Instrument of Power” on August 25th, 2016; “Progress report on the US-Russian war” on December 1st, 2017; “What price will mankind have to pay for the collapse of the Empire?” on April 13th, 2018; “Each “click” brings us one step closer to the “bang!” on April 20th, 2018).  But for all our efforts, we have been “voices crying in the wilderness” which is hardly surprising since even Putin’s blunt warning during his March 1st speech to the Russian Federal Assembly was quickly dismissed as “posturing” and quickly forgotten.  This is why two weeks following that historical speech I compared Russia to a peaceful rattlesnake (yes, they are peaceful creatures!) desperately trying to warn a drunk idiot to back-off but to no avail: the drunk idiot just boastfully declares “hold my beer and watch this” and tries to grab the snake.  I concluded by saying that:

May, Trump, Macron and Merkel, of course, but also their sycophantic presstitutes and the herds of zombified followers all believe in their invulnerability and superiority. The terrifying truth is that these folks have NO IDEA whom they are dealing with nor do they understand the consequences of pushing Russia too hard. Oh, in theory they do (yeah, yeah, Napoleon, Hitler, we know!). But in their guts, they feel safe, superior and just can’t conceive that they can die, and their entire society can just disappear.

Sadly, since then things have only gotten worse.  This is why a clearly disgusted and frustrated Putin recently declared that

Any aggressor should know that retribution will be inevitable and he will be destroyed. And since we will be the victims of his aggression, we will be going to heaven as martyrs. They will simply croak and won’t even have time to repent,”

Needless to say, the western ziomedia interpreted this warning as a sign of “Russian aggression,” not as a desperate attempt to wake up a delusional and infinitely arrogant Empire.

By the way – something very similar has been happening between the USA and China with an increasing number of Chinese officials publicly declaring that the Chinese armed forces need to prepare for war (here is just the latest such warning).

Sadly, the Chinese warnings are as ignored and as dismissed as the Russian ones.  And that is truly frightening.

At least during the Cuban Missile Crisis, the entire world press was reporting about the confrontation minute by minute, and everybody knew that the danger of war was very real. In contrast today, hardly anybody gives the possibility of war much thought. In fact, the leaders of the AngloZionist Empire seem to be dead set on multiplying their provocations against Russia ranging from holding major military exercises right at the Russian border to giving the most prestigious EU human right prize to a convicted terrorist (the Poles, always so helpful, even suggested that Sentsov ought to be given the Nobel!). The EU also failed to notice the Ukronazi acts of piracy in the Sea of Azov but instead, condemned Russia for strictly enforcing her legal right to retaliate for the Ukronazi actions.

Such a level of hypocrisy is disgusting, of course.  But it is also very, very dangerous.

Frankly, considering the fantastic and genuinely heroic efforts of Putin and Xi to avoid a major (nuclear) war with the Empire, I would suggest that they, not convicted terrorists, be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize (but I am not holding my breath here…)!

In sharp contrast to the western corporate media, the Russian media has been discussing the possibility of war with the US/NATO on a daily basis, and the discussion always revolves around the question “are they really crazy enough to actually attack us even though that would mean their certain destruction?!“. In fairness to the Russians, seeing folks like Nikki Haley or John Bolton, the question of “are they crazy?” is a logical one. But I think that it is also possibly misleading. Here is why:

While clearly some Neocons are truly batshit crazy, most are not. Stupid, ignorant, arrogant, hateful and evil – yes. But not necessarily insane. And for that reason, I don’t think that the AngloZionist leaders will stumble into a war against Russia as a result of their insanity. Besides, while US politicians are, indeed, amazingly stupid and ignorant, there are enough men in the US armed forces who remember the warning of Field Marshal and Viscount of Alamein Bernard Montgomery who famously declared to the House of Lords:

Rule 1, on page 1 of the book of war, is: “Do not march on Moscow”. Various people have tried it, Napoleon and Hitler, and it is no good. That is the first rule. I do not know whether your Lordships will know Rule 2 of war. It is: “Do not go fighting with your land armies in China.” It is a vast country, with no clearly defined objectives“.

Most senior US military commanders must realize that war against Russia and/or China is a suicidal proposition.

But while the insanity of western leaders is unlikely to cause a war, I am afraid that their despair might.

Think of it: right now the USA is engaged in two parallel processes: on the one hand the USA is involved in sanctions and economic wars against most of the planet while on the other hand, the USA is withdrawing from one major international treaty after another (including arms control treaties). Ask yourself a simple question: is this the behavior of a country which is weak or strong? What does this “full-spectrum” policy of confrontation and self-isolation (because that is what withdrawing from so many agreements and treaties does: isolate the USA) mean? Does it signal the actions of a confident and strong power or one which is desperate and lashes out on all levels?

As this short post by Larchmonter445 reminds us, the current batch of US leaders are first and foremost *losers* and while they are still doing a pretty good job of window-dressing and flag-waving, it is becoming increasingly impossible to hide the magnitude of the multi-level slow-motion collapse of the AngloZionist Empire. I suppose that the band playing on the deck of the Titanic also played louder and louder, but the outcome of the show was never in doubt. The same is happening here and therein lies an enormous danger: the harder it becomes to conceal the magnitude of the unfolding disaster, the more the Empire lashes out, making the situation even worse which then makes it even harder to conceal the magnitude of the disaster. The Empire in general, and the USA specifically, is literally cracking on all levels and there is absolutely no reasonable and halfway viable way to reverse this trend because the one and only solution for the USA to survive is to give up the Empire and become a “normal” country – something US leaders are not even willing to contemplate. The Neocons, especially, seem to have a quasi-religious belief (or maybe it is just an uncontrolled knee-jerk reaction) that when one of their putative “clever” plans fail, the correct solution is to double-down. They seem to have fully internalized the German aphorism “wenn es mit Gewalt nicht geht, dann geht es mit mehr Gewalt!” (if violence can’t fix it, then even more violence will), forgetting that this belief did Germany no good against Russia. As for the general western public, it has been successfully turned into what I call “ideological drones“: brainwashed automatons who will wave their (Chinese made) flags to cope with any residual cognitive dissonance.  When their certitudes finally come crashing down, they will also lash out at everything and everybody in abject despair and impotent rage.

Right now the USA and the “global West” (aka the AngloZionist Empire) are on a direct collision course with Russia (and probably China too).  Right now, I see very few signs that anybody in the western elites is able (or willing) to admit that at the end of that road there is war and the destruction of the USA (and possibly much of Europe).  Right now, the leaders of the Empire appear to be firmly locked into what the French call the “fuite en avant” (which can roughly be translated as “flight forward”, or “headlong rush”, “panic-induced compulsion to further exacerbate a crisis or calamity” or even “unconscious mechanism that causes a person to throw himself/herself into a dreaded danger”). I suppose that there is a sad and tragic irony in the fact that the result of the US elites constantly conjuring up some completely imaginary Russian “interventions” (in the USA and elsewhere) might eventually result in a very real Russia intervention, in the form of devastating missile strikes, but this is hardly a consolation.

How likely is that to change in the foreseeable future?

Not very likely, I am afraid.

Will Putin and Xi be able to avert the looming war with the West?

Maybe.  But with each passing day bringing only further escalations and provocations from the “global West” their task is becoming harder and harder.

So far all the Russian and Chinese warnings have fallen on deaf ears and, frankly, I don’t believe that more warnings will do any good.

This might be the time for Russia and China to begin pushing back seriously. Everything else has failed, at least so far.

The Saker

Lil’ Miss AIPAC Nikki Haley Ends Her Reign of Terror at the UN

Source

“As a blogger and political analyst, I’m a little sad that Haley’s gone. She was the geopolitical gift that kept on giving”

The world is not shedding any tears now that Lil ‘Miss AIPAC, Nikki Haley, has finished her time puffing up her political resume at the U.N.  To describe her performance as U.N. Ambassador over the last two years as strident and obnoxious would be a kindness.

Haley, simply put, was out of her depth as a diplomat, preferring to pre-run for President and shore up the support of the Israeli lobby in the U.S. rather than do her job with any modicum of honesty or integrity.

Her resigning quickly after the confirmation of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court is interesting, however.

While she has been, nominally, one of President Trump’s most public supporters she has also been instrumental in undermining Trump on foreign policy initiatives that do not comport with the wishes of her pay-masters at AIPAC.

While it is questionable how far Trump bows to the powerful Israeli lobby, no such questions should arise with Haley.  She literally invites my nickname for her with every public pronouncement.

Neocons Never Die

So, what are the implications of this move by Haley less than thirty days before the mid-terms elections?

Well, the first part of this is obvious.  The neoconservative/Never-Trump wing of the GOP, still smarting that their plan to hurt Trump by helping the Democrats scuttle the Kavanaugh appointment, are continuing to push the narrative that Trump has no control in the White House.

So, Haley, one of his best allies in the Administration, resigns suddenly to continue that appearance.  It doesn’t matter that she apparently wanted out before year end.  She could have held off until after the mid-terms to assist Trump in getting the GOP over the finish line with the House and Senate intact.

She didn’t do that.  And if that doesn’t clarify for you just who she truly works for, then sadly nothing will.

Honestly, she has been such a caricature of a Neocon during her time miscast as a diplomat, anyone would be better than her short of Paul Wolfowitz or Dick Cheney, because John Bolton already got a promotion to National Security Advisor.

Nimrata’s Gift of Garbage

As a blogger and political analyst, I’m a little sad that Haley’s gone.  She was the geopolitical gift that kept on giving every time she said something monumentally vile as she transparently worked to undermine anyone not fully on board with the Protocols of the Elders of AIPAC.

But, it’s not like Nimrata will be leaving the public spotlight.  She craves it too much.  The U.N. Ambassadorship was always simply her bully pulpit to plot her course to the Presidency.

And it’s sad that she wasn’t gone twenty minutes before that speculation began hitting the Twitterati of the Right.  The only thing more ignorant than that is the Leftists who see the invisible hand of Vladimir Putin behind every move of the Trump Administration thinking Haley was somehow Trump and Putin’s enemy at that level.

 

The likely story here is that, as I said, Haley was done burnishing her political throne at the U.N. and is looking for the next step in her designs on the White House.

I’m having a hard time believing that she resigned due to the recent report of her accepting luxury flights as gifts.  That’s something with her connections and positioning she could weather.  Seriously, does anyone think a few free flights would be enough to take down, one of the biggest war-hawks in D.C.?

If you do then you still probably think Elon Musk is a genius.

So, that leaves us with a few possibilities off the top of my head.

  1. Trump will fire Jeff Sessions after the mid-terms as is expected.  And Lindsay Graham will be promoted to Attorney General (not bloody likely).  This would pave the way for Nimrata to replace him in the Senate and set her up as the AIPAC Candidate of Choice for 2020 or 2024, depending on whether a Trump removal is successful.
  2. She was the one who wrote the infamous New York Times Op-Ed, or at least was the one who released it to the Times, and Trump fired her from the administration over it, because this resignation blind-sided everyone.
  3. She has been instrumental in facilitating MI-6 operations to undermine Trump’s plans to forge better relations with Russia and has been coordinating them through the U.N.  This is pure speculation on my part.  Just spitballing here.

If either #2 or #3 are correct then Trump feels confident that his position in D.C. has improved to the point where he can begin removing the neocon influence from his administration.  The shootdown of the IL-20 fiasco has French, British and Israeli fingerprints all over it.  And nearly got us involved in a war with Russia, something both Trump and Defense Secretary James Mattis do not want.

Something about this doesn’t feel right.  And it’s either the beginning of the end of the Neoconservative reign o’er Trump or it’s them tightening the noose around his neck.

The next few weeks will tell the tale.

Either way, with Hurricane Michael bearing down on Waffle House country, Nimrata’s waitressing skills could be put to productive use for the first time in two years

John Bolton, and his boss President Donald Trump, are enemies of our future.

Enemy Of Our Future
By Lawrence Davidson

If you look up the meaning of the term “reactionary,” you will probably get something like the following: “A reactionary is a person who holds political views that favor a return to the status quo ante, the previous political state of society, which they believe possessed characteristics that are … absent from the contemporary status quo of a society.”

Historically, this sort of person pops up over and again: the agents of monarchy fighting to reimpose the divine right of kings, the devotee of religious movements seeking to return society to some purer golden age, the leader of the social movement seeking to censor evolution, and, more to our present point, Donald Trump’s call to “make America Great Again” by reintroducing racism and ultra-nationalism as guides for public policy. As the last example suggests, it is usually bad news when the reactionary gains power.

One aspect of the status quo ante we are dealing with here is represented by the Trump administration’s assertion that, as the leader of the government of a sovereign state, he has the right to act in an unrestrained manner. For President Trump, such an alleged right is a sine qua non for “making America great again.” This assertion is, of course, not unique to Trump. Most U.S. presidents (and other leaders) have sought to act in an unrestrained way. But most have also given at least lip-service to a set of international rules—even if they are only of a diplomatic nature. Not so with Trump, who seems willing to dismantle treaties, alliances and trade pacts based on personal feelings. His only enduring alliance is with Israel, perhaps based on mutual racist inclinations.

Present (that is, status quo) institutions that attempt to impose international rules of behavior are targets for Trump and his reactionary allies. To Trump, these institutions must be done away with just because they stand in the way of the nation’s alleged traditional unfettered right to act as, in this case, President Trump sees fit.

Specifically, which institutions are we referring to? They are the relatively weak international institutions that came into being after World War II, such as the United Nations and the International Criminal Court (ICC). These are organizations put into place to discourage the type of state-bred chaos and crimes that almost destroyed civilization in the 1930s and 1940s. Therefore, there is no doubt that this effort is central to the world’s future peace and progress. As George Santayana famously noted, “those who forget the the past are condemned to repeat it.” The same goes for those who simply ignore the past’s lessons

The ICC, which was established by a multilateral treaty known as the Rome Statute, has been functioning since 2002. It seeks to prosecute, among other things, any repeat of two horrid past mistakes: the commission of war crimes and the practice of apartheid. Recently, the ICC has sought to officially investigate possible U.S. war crimes in Afghanistan as well as Israeli policies and actions against Gaza and on the occupied West Bank.

Part II—John Bolton

It appears that these efforts on the part of the ICC have set off a storm of indignation at the White House. In response, President Trump has set loose his present National Security Adviser, John Bolton, to orchestrate an attack on the international court. Bolton is nothing if not a pit bull in human form—the perfect point man to carry on the administration’s war on those who would keep the peace through the application of international law.

Thus, in early September, 2018, Bolton declared the following: “The United States will use any means necessary to protect our citizens and those of our allies from unjust prosecution by this illegitimate court.” Alas, Bolton is using “false news” here. There is nothing illegitimate about the ICC. As noted, its establishment was by international treaty and followed a strict ratification process. To date, 123 countries have ratified the Rome Statute. Also note that Bolton is assuming future prosecution as a reason for trying to block the present investigation. That would suggest that he believes the U.S. is vulnerable. And finally, the allies referenced here amount to just one. Bolton stated that the “Palestinian Liberation Organization’s office in Washington was being ordered closed out of concern about Palestinian attempts to prompt an ICC investigation of Israel.”

So what will the U.S. do if the ICC persists? Bolton, at this point working up a real head of steam, declared that “We will not cooperate with ICC. We will provide no assistance to the ICC. We will not join the ICC. We will let the ICC die on its own. After all, for all intents and purposes, the ICC is already dead to us.” In addition, “if the inquiry goes ahead, the administration will consider banning judges and prosecutors from entering the United States, put sanctions on any funds they have in the U.S. financial system and prosecute them in American courts.”

Part III—Enemy of Our Future

To the extent that the United States, or any other country, reverts to ultra-nationalism and stands against institutions such as the United Nations and the ICC, it endangers the future of not only Americans, but everyone else.

And that is one of the reasons why John Bolton, and his boss President Donald Trump, are enemies of our future. It is not that they have forgotten the tragedies brought upon the world by nationalism and its wars—culminating in the genocidal bloodbath of World War II. It is probable that they do not see these tragedies as criminal. Rather they see them as necessary actions on the road to national greatness. This is a perspective they would call “realistic” and in line with mankind’s aggressive nature. Thus, institutions that seek to criminalize such behavior are just hopelessly “idealistic” roadblocks to the pursuit of the national interests of the United States.

Perhaps more important is that the rest of the world’s population has also either remained ignorant of or forgotten such vital lessons, and so once more can be led by dangerously narrow-minded leaders into the next abyss. Karl M. von der Heyden, who as a small child survived the destruction of Berlin at the end of World War II, has written a brief testimony to the consequences of war and inadequate memory. Mr. von der Heyden tells us that now, “seventy years after World War II, millions of people in the U.S. and Europe have forgotten the lessons learned from that war.” That is why “ultra-nationalist and xenophobic appeals” are once more politically acceptable and successful. Thus, in the long run, “nothing can be taken for granted.”

Placing people like Trump and Bolton into leading government positions is the same as inviting fascism back into our national lives. And, we have issued that invitation quite democratically. This raises questions about the adequacy of not only our political system, but also our educational system. It would seem that the two are different sides of the same coin. The political system can work only if the educational system can sustain the memory of important national lessons learned in the past. At this point both systems have failed us—allowing into power enemies of our future.

Lawrence Davidson is a retired professor of history from West Chester University in West Chester PA. His academic research focused on the history of American foreign relations with the Middle East. He taught courses in Middle East history, the history of science and modern European intellectual history.

Amerika Uber Alles

Amerika Uber Alles
By Eric Margolis

This was hell week in New York City. Traffic was paralyzed from one end of the narrow island to the other as bigwigs and their entourages flocked to the city for the fall opening of the United Nations.

Making matters worse, President Donald Trump chose the occasion to lambaste nations he does not like in a crude display of boorishness not seen since Soviet boss Nikita Khrushchev banged his shoe on his desk at the General Assembly back in 1960.

Trump reserved special venom for his pet bêtes noirs, Iran and China. His jeremiad against Iran was reportedly written by senior aide Stephen Miller, a rabidly anti-Muslim extremist who speaks with the voice of Israel’s expansionist far right.

Trump reiterated his doctrine of American ultra-nationalism. Political and economic nationalism are his credo. The president claimed he had indeed made America great again, whatever that means.

The president’s speech was greeted by derisive laughter from the General Assembly, a first in UN history.

I was reminded of Dr. Samuel Johnson’s famous bon mot, ‘patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.’ Indeed it is.

And of the words of the late British professor, A.P. Thornton: ‘Patriotism is the first platform of fools.’

Patriotism is poison. Dictators, despots, lunatics – and too many democratic politicians – use it to inflame popular passions to enhance their power. There is nothing wrong with loving and respecting one’s homeland. Canadians offer a fine example of quiet national pride without obnoxious flag-waving and bullying.

But everything is wrong with unleashing toxic nationalist emotions to promote empire-building or eradicating whole peoples. Look at the current horrors in Burma and the recent mass crimes in Bosnia.

As a former soldier and war correspondent, I cringe when I see all the faux patriotism of sports events, chants of ‘USA, ‘USA,’ and pro-war propaganda on TV. Having walked many of the battlefields of World War I, on which millions died, I detest the kind of patriotic cant that ended the civilized glories of pre-war, 19th Century Europe. The idiotic cries in 1914 of ‘on to Berlin’ and ‘on to Paris’ haunt us. Their modern version was ‘Get Saddam’ and ‘bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.’

Trump, who sees himself as more an emperor than democratic president, continues to press for war with Iran, egged on by the cabal of pro-Israel advisors that surround him. Billionaire gambling king Sheldon Adelson pulls the strings from just backstage.

Now, in a new eruption of paranoia, President Trump just claimed that China was trying to rig this fall’s elections. How? By placing tariffs on US agricultural exports to China to punish Trump’s many supporters in the farm belt.

Add Trump’s economic war against Turkey which had locked up an American evangelical pastor accused of involvement in the attempted 2016 coup against the elected government. This contrived furor was clearly aimed at pleasing Trump’s core evangelical supporters. No matter that America was spitting in the face of old ally Turkey whose soldiers had saved many American GI’s during the 1950-53 Korean War and allows the US to keep nuclear weapons at its Incirlik air base.

Unfortunately, many Americans who have never known war at home since 1865 are all too eager to follow a path to war provided it’s far away and a turkey shoot. But now, having bombed all the usual Muslims and ravaged the Mideast, our national security state has to face the ominous reality that the US may have to confront real, big-time enemies, Russia and China. This clearly invokes the nightmare threat of a nuclear confrontation.

President Trump, who thundered at North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, ‘my nuclear button is bigger than yours,’ is not the best pilot to guide his nation through dangerous waters. While Trump has some solid advisors – generals Mattis and Kelly – he is also surrounded by a coterie of political fanatics, many plucked from the political gutter. Trump’s unnecessary trade wars and embargoes could easily lead to shooting wars.

We don’t need nationalism, we need wise, cautious leadership.

Eric S. Margolis is an award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist. His articles have appeared in the New York Times, the International Herald Tribune the Los Angeles Times, Times of London, the Gulf Times, the Khaleej Times, Nation – Pakistan, Hurriyet, – Turkey, Sun Times Malaysia and other news sites in Asia. ericmargolis.com

%d bloggers like this: