Lessons From History

The Saker

February 16, 2018

Lessons From History
This comment was chosen by moderator HS from the post  “Syrian War Report – February 13, 2018: Israel Deploys New Anti-Missile Systems Near Syria”. The moderator felt the comment was exceptionally informative.

Comment by Auslander

Our world is slowly, actually in the last month not so slowly, approaching the active continuation of the war that started in 1914. While there have been interludes of relative ‘peace’, read the main antagonists were not bayoneting each other by the tens of thousands daily, reality is there has been no peace since that fateful day in 1914.

The fall of the Russian Empire, to a more or less great extent by it’s own hand, was one of the main events of that war and this destruction effectively negated any Russian influence in world events for a generation during which time all the protagonists managed to grow another generation of fighting age men. Looking back from the relatively clear vision of a century, one can see that the second part of this war was inflicted on themselves by the supposed victors of the first active phase of the war with their draconian sanctions and reparations pushed on Germany and Austria. The ‘victors’ certainly harvested what they had sown and in spades, as did most of the northern hemisphere of this rock we are on.

Through the three decades after the second active phase of the 1914 war, massive rebuilding was done in all the continental areas of the fighting and in China and Japan. Entire cultures had been flattened and some completely wiped out, never to return, in the first two active phases of the war. Such is war which saw England die on Flanders fields, France had died on the retreat from Moskau in 1812, bayoneted yet again in the 1870’s and effectively destroyed at Verdun. Russia was prostrate after 1918, rebuilt herself by the 1930’s and attacked again in 1941, being almost totally destroyed from Moskau west to the borders of ‘olde Europe’ by 1945. Reality is USA was the only one standing in 1945, Europe, North Afrika, Japan and China were destroyed.

In the ensuing ‘peace’, aka Pax Rossiya, of 1954 to 1990, Europe, Russia and Japan rebuilt themselves from the ground up. Both Russia and US occupied Europe and US occupied Japan, US still occupying these areas, Russia having withdrawn when SSSR disintegrated around 1990. In the ensuing 25 years since SSSR ceased to exist, Russia has pulled herself up by her boot straps and to a fair extent stopped the wholesale looting and plundering of former SSSR riches and resources.

In the meantime, US has, against all guaranties given to SSSR and Russia, expanded nato to the very borders of Russia and has actively engaged Russia in several fronts, most recent in Gruzya and Syria. The Gruzya war was short and a lesson to both us/nato and Russia. Now, at the request of the legal government of Syria, Russia has stepped in to stop the ‘civil’ war, read attempt to destroy and fragment Syria, and to a large extent defeated ISIL (or whatever name they go by on this day) and pushed us/nato away from the main population centers of Syria. The cost has been horrendous but there is a glimmer of victory, and peace, on the horizon.

Us/nato have done their very best to negate Russia’s efforts in Syria and the success of President Putin in stopping any possibility of war and occupation by us/nato of Krimea and Sevastopol, both entities being the prize of the coup in Kiev in 2014. As a result of President Putin’s success in these two agendas and President Putin stopping the genocide and destruction of Novorossiya, to some ‘Donbas’, us/nato are now fully committed to war against Russia. They are slowly but steadily putting a ring of missile defenses around Russia, from the Baltic area down to the east and southern Black Sea (and shortly in Gruzya), now Korea and Japan, and of course defenses are in and have been in Alaska.

Now, here’s a little breath of reality. When the wagon train, aka Russia, has circled, and the bad guys, aka us/nato, are slowly moving closer and closer to the circle of wagons while continuously muttering platitudes and disavowing any ulterior motives, what is one to think whilst sitting inside the circle of wagons? We KNOW what to think and we know what is coming, the only question is when. The problem is us/nato knows they can not defeat Russia in a conventional war and they know a ‘non conventional’ war will see the utter and total destruction of at least the northern half of our home planet.

Therefore us/nato have only one, actually two, possibilities of action at this time. One is the ongoing and ever increasing sanctions against Russia, each an act of war in and of itself. The other is to actively fight against Russia in Syria and this is what us/nato have been doing since Russia was invited by the legally elected government of the Sovereign State of Syria to help defeat the terrorists/us/nato attempting to destroy Syria. In this ongoing war, and that’s exactly what it is, a war between us/nato and Russia, losses have and will occur to both sides. Both sides will use whatever propaganda they can to make themselves look like virtuous warriors while denigrating the other side. Such is life for eons. The reality is us/nato and Russia have tried not to actively fight each other with their own troops, they use proxies in general and both sides have advisers helping their proxies and for Russia helping the armed forces of Syria. As a result of these advisers and proxies, losses occur on each side.

The actual fight ballyhooed in the news was simply an air attack by illegal us/nato forces against Syrian government forces approaching an area us/nato did not want them near. It is unknown if Russia or Syria was aware of the actual quite small force advancing towards a ‘us/nato secure zone’ but the air attack did happen and reliable reports are three contractors and ‘a few’ Syrian troops were killed. Such is war and the end result was some more grieving widows and families on both sides as us/nato protected their ISIL proxies, nothing more.

Now as far as reality in this ongoing continuation of the 1914 war. Who are you to believe and put your faith in? Are you to believe a man who came from virtually nowhere in 1999, reached down and pulled Russia from the deadly morass she was sinking in, rebuilt the Russian economy, rebuilt the Russia armed forces in to a force that is both patriotic and a force to be reckoned with, restored the diplomatic corp of Russia with the likes of Minister Lavrov, restored the faith of the population to Russia and enjoys somewhere around 80% approval of his policies both home and international? Or are you to believe in the likes of Tillerson and Mattis, in the likes of a country whose president has no real power to this day and in my opinion is the midst of an ongoing and vicious coup d’etat against the legally elected government and the president, whose military is a half assed experiment in social engineering and is scattered all across the globe with no real power in any one given area? A country that actively stifles any descent against it’s will all over this globe and is steadily moving to war against a nuclear armed country that has displayed no aggression since 1990? A country that is rapidly turning in to an economic disaster and becoming a police state the likes of which Goebbels and Beria would love and admire?

I know that’s a difficult question but sitting here on one of many ground zeroes, I know who my faith is in.

Advertisements

Professor Stephen F. Cohen: Rethinking Putin – a review

[This analysis was written for the Unz Review]

I have recently had the pleasure of watching a short presentation by Professor Stephen F. Cohen entitled “Rethinking Putin” which he delivered on the annual Nation cruise on December 2, 2017 (see here for the original Nation Articleand original YouTube video). In his short presentation, Professor Cohen does a superb job explaining what Putin is *not* and that includes: (but, please do watch the original video before proceeding).

  1. He is not the man who de-democratized Russia (Elstin and the White House did)
  2. He is not the leader who created corruption and kleptocracy in Russia (Elstin and the White House did)
  3. He is not a criminal leader who ordered the murder of opponents or journalists (no evidence)
  4. He did not order the hacking of the DNC servers (no evidence)
  5. He was not anti-US or anti-West from the get-go (Putin changed over time)
  6. He is not a neo-Soviet leader (he is very critical of Lenin and Stalin)
  7. He is not an aggressive foreign policy leader (he has been a reactive leader)
  8. He is not somehow defined by his years at the KGB.

Professor Cohen ended his talk by suggesting a few things which might form a part of a future honest biography:

  1. As a young and inexperienced leader placed at the helm of a collapsing state:
  2. He rebuilt, stabilized and modernized Russia in a way to prevent future collapses
  3. He had to restore the “vertical” of power: “managed democracy” (i.e. restored order)
  4. He needed a consensual history patching up Czarist, Soviet and post-Soviet eras without imposing one, single, version of history
  5. He needed Western support to modernize the Russian economy
  6. He wanted Russia to be a great power, but not a super-power
  7. He never favored iron-curtain isolationism; he is an internationalist (more European than 90% of Russians, at least in the beginning).

The key thesis is this: Putin began as a pro-Western, European leader and with time he realigned himself with a much more traditional, Russian worldview. He is more in line with Russian voters today.

Professor Cohen concluded by addressing two topics which, I presume, his audience cared deeply about: he said that, contrary to Western propaganda, the so-called ‘anti-gay’ laws in Russia are no different from the laws of 13 US states. Secondly, that “by any reckoning, be it flourishing inside Russia or relations with Israel, by general consent of all, nobody denies this, Jews under Putin in Russia are better off than they had ever been in Russian history. Ever. They have more freedom, less official anti-Semitism, more protection, more official admiration for Israel, more interaction, more freedom to go back and forth”.

This is all very interesting important stuff, especially when delivered to a Left-Liberal-Progressive US audience (with, probably, a high percentage of Jews). Frankly, Professor Cohen’s presentation makes me think about what Galileo might have felt when he made his own “presentations” before the tribunal of Inquisition (Cohen’s articles and books are now also on the modern equivalent of the Index Librorum Prohibitorum). In truth, Professor Cohen is simply true to himself: he opposed the crazies during the old Cold War and now he is opposing the same crazies during the new Cold War. His entire life Professor Cohen was a man of truth, courage, and integrity – a peacemaker in the sense of the Beatitudes (Matt 5:9). So while I am not surprised by his courage, I am still immensely impressed by it. Some might think that delivering a short presentation on a cruise-ship is hardly a sign of great courage, but I would vehemently disagree. Yes, nobody would shoot Cohen in the back of the neck like, say, the Soviet ChK-GPU-NKVD would have done, but I submit that these methods of “enforcing” a single official consensus were far less effective than their modern equivalents: the conformity imposition techniques (see: Asch Conformity Experiment) so prevalent in the modern Western society. Just look at the results: there was far more reading and thinking (of any kind) going on in the Soviet society than there is today in the modern AngloZionist Empire (anybody who remembers the bad old USSR will confirm that to you). As one joke puts it: in a dictatorship, you are told to “shut up”, while in a democracy you are encouraged to “keep talking”. QED.

Turning to Professor Cohen’s talking points, numbers 1, 2, 3 and 4 are basic facts. Nothing to be debated here – Cohen is plainly setting the factual record straight. Number 5 is much more interesting and controversial. For one thing, we are talking views/intentions, which are hard to judge. Was Putin ever pro-Western? Who knows? Maybe his closest friends know? My own belief is that this question must be looked at in combination of issue #8: Putin’s service in the KGB.

There is still a huge amount of misinformation about the old Soviet KGB in the West. To the average American a “KGB agent” is a guy called Vladimir, with steel gray-blue eyes, who beats up dissidents, steals Western technological secrets, and spies on the wives of politicians (and even beds them). He is a hardcore Communist who dreams about nuking or invading the USA and he speaks with a thick Russian accent. Alternatively, there is Anna Kushchenko (a.k.a. Anna Chapman) – a devious sex doll who seduces Western men into treason. These prototypes are as accurate as James Bond is an accurate representation of MI6. The reality could not be more different.

The Soviet KGB was first and foremost a huge bureaucracy with completely different, and separate, directorates, departments, and sections. Yes, one such Directorate did deal with dissidents and anti-Soviet activists (mainly the 9thDepartment of the 5th Directorate) but even within this (infamous) 5th Directorate there were some Departments which, in coordination with other KGB Directorates and Departments, dealt with more legitimate tasks such as, for example, the early detection of terrorist organizations (7th Department). Other Directorates of the KGB dealt with economic security (6th Directorate), internal security and counter-intelligence (2nd Directorate) or even protection of officials (9th Directorate).

Putin was an officer (not an “agent” – agents are recruited from outside the KGB!) of the First Main Directorate (PGU) of the KGB: foreign intelligence. Putin himself has recently revealed that he was working inside the most sensitive Department of the PGU, the “Department S” which are “illegals”. This is very important. The PGU was so separate from all the other Directorates of the KGB that it had its own headquarters in the south of Moscow. But even inside the PGU, the Department S was the most secret and separated from all the other PGU Departments (no less than 10). As somebody who has spent many years as an anti-Soviet activist and who has had personal, face to face, dealings with KGB officers (of various Directorates) I can confirm that not only did the KGB as a whole get some of the best and brightest in Russia, but the PGU got the best ones of those and only the very best ones from that select group ever made it to the legendary Department S. Now let’s look at what kind of skill-set was required from PGU officers in general (besides the obvious two: being very bright and very trustworthy).

First and foremost, a PGU officer has to be a top-notch specialist of his area of expertise (in Putin’s case: Germany, of course, but also the rest of Europe and, since Western Europe was – and still is – a US colony, the USA). While Soviet people were told that the West was the enemy, the PGU officers had to understand why and how the West was that enemy.

In practical terms, this implies not only knowing and understanding the official cultural, political, social and economic realities of the enemy’s polity, but also the real power relations inside that polity. Such an understanding is not only useful to approach and evaluate the potential usefulness of each person you interact with, but also to be able to understand in what environment this person has to operate. The notion of PGU officers being bigoted commies is laughable as these men, and women, were very well read (they had unlimited access to all the Western information sources, including anti-Soviet ones, classified reports, and all the anti-Soviet literature imaginable) and they were ultimate realists/pragmatists. Of course, like in any organization, the top leaders were often political appointees and the bureaucrats and counter-intelligence officers were much less sophisticated. But for officers like Putin to reallyunderstand the reality of the Western society was a vital skill.

Second, a good PGU officer had to be likable; very, very likable. Being liked by others is also a crucial skill for a good intelligence officer. In practical terms, this means that he/she has to not only understand what makes the other guy tick but how to influence him/her in the right direction. When dealing with ‘illegals’ that also meant being their best friend, confessor, moral support, guide and protector. You can’t do that if people don’t like you. So these intelligence officers are masters of being good friends and companions; they are good listeners and they know a lot about how to make you like them. They also understand exactly what you like to hear, what you want to see and what words and actions place you in a relaxed and trusting mode.

Now combine these two: you have a man who is top notch specialist of the West and who is superbly trained to be liked by Western people. How likely is it that this man had many illusions about the West, to begin with? And what if a man like that did have misgivings – would he have shown them?

My own gut feeling is that this is not very likely at all.

What is far more likely is this: Putin played the “West best’s friend” role for as long as possible and he dumped it when it was clearly not productive any longer. And yes, in doing that he did realign himself to the mainstream Russian public opinion. But that was just a useful side-effect, not the cause or the goal of that realignment.

Look at the Professor Cohen’s points 9-13 above (I would summarize them as “fix Russia”). They all make sense to me, even that “he was a young and inexperienced leader”. There is a huge difference between being a skilled PGU officer and being the man who rules over Russia. And even if Putin did lose some of his illusions, it would have been primarily because the West itself changed a great deal between the 1980s and the 2010s. But Putin must have indeed always known that to implement Cohen’s points 10-13 he needed the West’s help, or, if that was not possible, at least the West’s minimal interference/resistance. But to believe that a man who had full access to the real information about the two Chechen wars would have any kind of illusions left about the West’s real feelings about Russia is profoundly misguided. In fact, anybody living in Russia in the 1990s would have eventually come to the realization that the West wanted all Russians to be slaves, or, more accurately, and in the words of Senator McCain – “gas station” attendants. Putin himself said so when he declared, speaking about the USA,

they don’t want to humiliate us, they want to subjugate us. They want to solve their problems at our expense, they want to subordinate us to their influence“. Putin then added, “nobody in history has ever succeeded in doing this and nobody will ever succeed“.

First, I submit that Putin is absolutely correct in his understanding of the West’s goals. Second, I also submit that he did not suddenly “discover” this in 2014. I think that he knew it all along, but began openly saying so after the US-backed coup in the Ukraine. Furthermore, by 2014, Putin had already accomplished points 9-13 and he did not need the West as much anymore.

Now let’s look at points 6 (Putin’s view of the Soviet period), 12 (consensual history) and 14 (Russia as a great power but not a super-power). And again, let’s consider the fact that officers of the PGU had total access to any history books, secret archives, memoirs, etc. and that they were very free to speak in pragmatic analytical terms on all historical subjects with their teachers and colleagues. Here I submit that Putin had no more illusions about the Soviet past then he had about the West. The fact that he referred to the breakup of the Soviet Union (which, let’s remember, happened in a totally undemocratic way!) as a “catastrophe” which was “completely unnecessary does in no way imply that he was not acutely aware of all the horrors, tragedies, waste, corruption, degradation and general evil of the Soviet regime. All this shows is that he is also aware of the immense victories, achievements, and successes which also are part of the historical record of the Soviet era. Finally, and most importantly, it shows that he realizes what absolute disaster, a cataclysm of truly cosmic proportions the break-up of the Soviet Union represented for all the people of the former USSR and what an absolute nightmare it was for Russia to live a full decade as a subservient colony of Uncle Sam.

I am certain that Putin studied enough Hegel to understand that the horrors of the 1990s were the result of the internal contradictions of the Soviet era just as the Soviet era was the result of the internal contradictions of Czarist Russia. In plain English, this means that he fully understood the inherent dangers of empire and that he decided, along with the vast majority of Russians, that Russia ought to never become an empire again. A strong, respected and sovereign country? Yes. But an empire? Never again. No way!

This fundamental conclusion is also the key to Putin’s foreign policy: it is “reactive” by nature simply because it only acts in response to when (and what) something affects Russia. You could say that all “normal” nations are “reactive” because they have no business doing otherwise. Getting involved everywhere, in every fight or conflict, is what empires based on messianic ideologies do, not normal countries regardless of how big or powerful they are. For all the sick and paranoid hallucinations of Western Russophobes about a “resurgent Russia” the reality is that Russian diplomats have often mentioned what the goals of Russian foreign policies truly are: to turn enemies into neutrals, neutrals into partners, partners into friends and friends into allies. And this is why Professor Cohen is absolutely correct, Putin is no isolationist at all – he wants a new, multi-polar, international order of sovereign countries; not because he is a naïve wide-eyed idealist, but because this is what is pragmatically good for Russia and her people. You could say that Putin is a patriotic internationalist.

And now to the homosexuals and Jews. First, both assertions made by Professor Cohen are correct: homosexuals and Jews are doing great in modern Russia. I would even agree that they are doing better than ever before. Of course, both Professor Cohen and I are being factual and very superficial when we say that. And since I discussed both of these topics in some detail in the past (see here and here) I won’t discuss them here. Rather, I would simply state that in both cases we are talking about a rather small minority of whose treatment is, for some reason or other, considered as THE measure of humanity, kindness, civilization, and modernity in the West. Well, okay, to each his own. If in the West, the treatment of these two minorities is The One And Only Most Important Topic In The Universe – fine. I personally don’t care much (especially since I don’t feel that I owe any special consideration to either one of them). This being said, I would also claim that Putin’s number one concern is also not for any specific minority. However, and that is where this is indeed very interesting, his concern for the majority does not at all imply any kind of disregard or disrespect for the fundamental freedoms and rights of the minorities but includes his concern for all minorities (and, in this case, not just two minorities which are treated as “more equal than others”).

This is where various right-wingers and assorted Alt-Righters completely “lose” Putin. The very same Putin who told an assembly of Orthodox Jews in Moscow that 80-85% of Bolshevik leaders were Jews (see subtitled video here), the same Putin who crushed the (overwhelmingly Jewish) oligarchs of the Eltsin era as soon as he came to power, and the same Putin who completely ignored all the hysterics of Bibi Netanyahu about the Russian role in Syria is also the same Putin who went out of his way to protect Russian Jews inside Russia and who considers that Jews and Russians are forever joined in their common memory of the horrors of WWII.

[Sidebar: I personally wish that Russia would denounce Israel for what it is, an illegitimate racist rogue state hell-bent on genocide and expansion, but I don’t have relatives there. Neither am I the President of a country with very strong ties to the Russian-speaking Jewish communities worldwide. In my opinion, I am accountable to nobody else but my conscience and God, whereas Putin is accountable to those who elected him and still support him].

Guilt by association, the punishment of all for the actions of some, scapegoating, the vicious persecution of minorities in the name of some ideal – this has all been tried in the past, both in Russia and in the West. The Nazis did that and so did the Soviets. And both the Nazis and the Soviets inflicted untold horrors upon the many peoples of the Soviet Union and beyond. Putin is acutely aware of the dangers of nationalism, just as much as he is aware of the dangers of imperialism, and he said so many times: Russia cannot afford any more nationalistic conflicts as they almost completely destroyed Russia in the 1990s. Just look at modern Ukraine and you will see what a Russia torn apart by nationalist ideologies could have looked like had Putin not cracked down, hard, on various nationalists (including and mostly Russian ones).

Far from catering to (an admittedly powerful) Jewish lobby in Russia, Putin is, in fact, trying to assemble as many different peoples and minorities as possible to his project of a New Russia; and that project includes Russian Jews, not only for the sake of these Jews, but mainly for the sake of Russia. The same goes for another crucial minority in Russia – Muslims. They also very much form a key part of the project Putin has for Russia. Of course, racists, nationalists and other less than bright folks in Russia will still dream about expelling all Jews (or Muslims) from Russia. Simply put – that ain’t happening (for one thing this would be physically impossible) and Putin and those who support him will fight such projects with every legal tool at their disposal. Here again, you could say that Putin is a patriotic internationalist.

In the meanwhile, the West is still stuck in its old, ideological ways: imperialism, nationalism and messianic exclusivism on one hand, and a complete surrender to post-modernism, cultural self-hatred, petty minority politics and moral relativism on the other. It is, therefore, no surprise whatsoever that both mainstream camps in the West completely misread Putin and can’t figure out what he is up to.

Professor Cohen is right: the real Putin has absolutely nothing, nothing at all, in common with the pseudo-Putin the Western media presents to its infinitely gullible and zombified audience. Alas, nobody will listen to Cohen, at least not until the regime in Washington DC and the power structure which supports it, and whose interests it represents, come crashing down. But I do believe that Professor Cohen will eventually go down in history as the most intellectually honest and courageous Russia expert in the USA.

المشروع الروسي في الهجوم المعاكس .. اسقاط النجم الساطع

كلنا نعلم أن هناك مشروعا أميريكيا في المنطقة يأخذ اشكالا عديدة ويمر بمراحل متعددة

والتأمل الراجع للمنطقة منذ مناورات (النجم الساطع) التي بدأتها الولايات المتحدة في الصحراء المصرية عام 1980 مع الرئيس أنور السادات يوصل التحليل المنطقي الى نتيجة ليقول بأنها تحضير لحروب ستقوم بها الولايات المتحدة في مناطق الصحراء وليس في ثلوج روسيا وسيبيرية .. ولم يكن أحد قادرا على معرفة الصحراء التي يخطط الاميريكيون للقتال فيها والتي يقومون بتدريباتهم في الصحراء الكبرى من أجلها .. وقد درس الاميريكون تجربة مناورات النجم الساطع وتبين لهم مناطق الضعف الذي تعاني منه الاسلحة الاميريكية فالحوامات مثلا كانت تتعطل بسبب تسرب الرمال الى محركاتها مما تسبب بفشلها في أداء مهامها القتالية بشكل كبير كما أن دقة الطائرات المقاتلة كانت ضعيفة بسبب سوء الرؤية .. وتم تدارك هذه العيوب في تصاميم وتجهيز الطائرات لتقاتل بفعالية في أجواء رملية .. البعض كان يتحدث عن حرب مقبلة في صحراء نجد والحجاز لأن الاميريكيين ربما يتوقعون اجتياحا من قبل الرفاق الشيوعيين اليمنيين لمناطق النفط والغاز على غرار سيناريو أفغانستان فقد يتسرب الثوار الشيوعيون اليمنيون شمالا ويستولون على اراض سعودية قرب منابع النفط ويطلبون قدوم السوفييت لمؤازرتهم كما حدث في أفغانستان ..

ولكن اليوم صرنا نعرف ان الصحراء التي كانت أميريكا تريد القتال فيها هي الصحراء العراقية والسورية وفيها مشروع أميريكا الكبير لضمان الاستيلاء على القرن الحادي والعشرين .. فقد أدى قيام الثورة الايرانية عام 1979 ووصول السوفييت الى افغانستان في نفس العام الى جعل هذه الخطوة للاستيلاء على الصحراء العراقية السورية حيوية جدا أكثر من اي وقت مضى لاحتواء ايران والاتحاد السوفييتي قبل وصول أي منهما الى هذه العقدة الذهبية حيث قلب العالم والطاقة والمواصلات .. فقد توقع الاميريكيون ان فلسفة الفكر الاسلامي الايرانية ستتمدد غربا نحو العراق على الاقل بسبب البيئة الشيعية الغالبة وتطبعه بطابع الثورة الخمينية وربما يكون تقاطع المصالح مع السوفييت والعداء المشترك للغرب سببا في عدم تصادم الثوار الشيوعيين مع الثوار الشيعة من افغانستان الى العراق ولذلك فان الاميريكيين قد يكونون مضطرين لايقاف التحالف الشيعي الشيوعي عبر خوض حرب الصحراء التي تفصل سورية والعراق .. وكان القلق الاميريكي أيضا بسبب احتمال ان يطلق الشيوعيون السوفييت العنان للماركسيين السوريين للوصول الى السلطة أو المشاركة فيها في حركة مفاجئة .. وبذلك يكتمل مستطيل الرعب من افغانستان الى سورية لاقفال الصحراء العراقية السورية الى أجل لايعرف مداه ..

وكان تحريك الاخوان المسلمين في سورية عام 1982 ليس مجرد صدفة في ذلك العام الذي انطلقت فيه مناورات النجم الساطع .. بل كان أول محاولة لبناء أول جدار أو حاجز طبيعي ضد التحالف السوفييتي الايراني المحتمل (أو الشيعي الشيوعي) .. فالاخوان المسلمون أعداء طبيعيون للأفكار التي ليست من مصدر سني كما أنهم حركة مناوئة بشكل طبيعي للشيوعية .. واذا تم تمكينهم من الحكم في سورية فانهم سيحقنون بالنزق والقلق من الجار الايراني وحليفها الشيوعي وسيضطرون الى طلب العون من العدو الطبيعي لايران والاتحاد السوفييتي ولن يكون سوى اميريكا التي ستتبرع وتأتي الى الحدود السورية العراقية حيث الصحراء بخبرة مناورات النجم الساطع لحماية دولة الاخوان المسلمين الوليدة من الخطر الايراني والشيوعي .. وكان غزو لبنان من قبل اسرائيل في نفس العام 1982 بالتوازي مع تحريك الاخوان المسلمين في سورية ليس صدفة ايضا بل خطوة في اتجاه بناء قاعدة ضغط على الحكم في سورية اما للتوطئة لتسهيل هزيمته امام تحدي الاخوان في داخل سورية أو لقبوله بوصول الاخوان للمشاركة في الحكم وفرض الاجندة الاخوانية عليه .. في كلتا الحالتين ستصل اميريكا الى الصحراء السورية العراقية وتتموضع على خط جبهة من تركيا وحتى الخليج العربي والسعودية مرورا بالاردن وسورية .. وهناك قد تكون المواجهة الكبرى ..

والسياسة مثل الطرقات والمسالك .. فقد تتغير المسالك والطرقات لتجنب الممرات الصعبة طالما أنها توصل الى الهدف .. فقد تغيرت الطرقات وسقط الرفاق الشيوعيون داخل أسوارهم فيما تم ايقاف ثوار الخميني بالمتاريس البعثية لصدام حسين .. وبقيت تلك الصحراء العراقية السورية جاهزة لاستقبال وحمل مشروع القرن الواحد والعشرين .. فتم خوض عاصفة الصحراء كأول أول حرب للصحراء والتي كانت أول ثمرة مبكرة من سلسلة مناورات النجم الساطع الصحراوية .. ثم تلتها عملية غزو العراق عام 2003 والتموضع في الصحراء العراقية والتي لاتزال حتى هذه اللحظة تخضع لوجود وسيطرة أميريكية بشكل أو بآخر .. ثم جاء الربيع العربي والثورة السورية لاستكمال الاستيلاء على الجزء السوري من الصحراء حيث تم تمكين داعش من الصحراء .. فيما كان سيتم تسليم بقية سورية الى عدة مشاريع اسلامية تحيط بالصحراء ..

في غمرة نمو هذا المشروع وفعالياته لم ينتبه الكثيرون الى هجوم معاكس قام به الروس عبر نهوض هادىء للمشروع الروسي من بين حطام الاتحاد السوفييتي .. المشروع الروسي الذي عمليا يعتمد على اعادة احياء الكابوس القديم باحياء مستطيل الرعب الاميريكي من ايران الى سورية لافراغ هذا المستطيل من الاميريكيين وحرمانهم من الصحراء السورية العراقية .. والهجوم المعاكس الروسي الذي نهض من جثة الاتحاد السوفييتي يشبه مشروع اليد الميتة لروسيا الذي صمم للانتقام من اي هجمة نووية اميريكية غادرة تقضي على القدرة الروسية للرد .. حيث تركت منظومات اسلحة نووية روسية مفعلة لتنطلق بشكل آلي دون تدخل بشري كما لو ان الروبوتات هي التي ستتولى الانتقام في حال غياب البشر ..

والمشروع الروسي لتحرير الصحراء السورية العراقية من اليد الاميريكية بدأ بالتنسيق الصامت مع ايران لبناء مفاعلاتها النووية والتشاور معها دوليا .. فيما وصل الجيش الروسي فجأة الى الصحراء السورية وتموضع فيها مع الجيش السوري وطرد الجيش الأميريكي من جزء من الصحراء السورية الذي كان يتواجد فيها تحت غطاء داعش .. ويبدو الجزء الباقي من الصحراء تحت النفوذ الاميريكي غير مستقر لأن من الواضح أن المشروع الروسي لن يتوقف هنا وهو يريد اخراج الأميريكيين من الصحراء السورية العراقية والتمدد فوق المستطيل من ايران الى سورية لأنه أدرك أن احياء روسيا يبدأ بشلّ أميريكا باخراجها من هذه الصحراء بحيث يصبح مستطيل ايران العراق وسورية منطقة حيوية روسية صرفة .. ولذلك فان المشروعين الروسي والاميريكي يصطدمان عسكريا علنا في قلب الصحراء السورية العراقية .. ولايمكن لهما أن يبقيا معا في نفس الصحراء .. فالصحراء لاتتسع الا لأحدهما .. اما الاميريكي أو الروسي ..

الاميريكي يدرك الآن بعد اضطراره للخروج من العراق أن خروجه من الصحراء صار مسألة وقت وأن الفراغ يملأ بالروس وحلفائهم تدريجيا .. ويبدو ان حظوظ الروس لطرد الاميريكيين وملء الفراغ بالحلفاء في تلك الصحراء صارت كبيرة للغاية .. كما أن معركة الحلفاء شرق الفرات ضد الوجود الاميريكي صارت على الابواب بمجرد استعادة ادلب .. وهو ماسيحاول الأميريكيون اللعب فيه قدر الامكان وتعطيله أو تأخيره عبر حملة اعلامية واعادة تفعيل ملف السلاح الكيماوي أو تفعيل العلاقة مع اردوغان ومداعبته بتركه يذبح الكرد للانقلاب على تفاهماته الروسية .. أو عبر تزويد الارهابيين مباشرة بتكنولوجيا عسكرية مثل ماكشفته غارات الطائرات المسيرة نحو حميميم ومابينته من توفر تكنولوجيا لاتتاح الا لخبراء الصناعات العسكرية والتكنولوجية في مراكز متخصصة محدودة .. وربما بمحاولة زعزعة استقرار روسيا وحكم بوتين بحصاره اقتصاديا وفرض عقوبات عليه أو بالتأثير على فرص نجاحه في الانتخابات الروسية القادمة بتقديم تسهيلات أكبر للارهابيين لالحاق اذى معنوي يطال حملة بوتين الانتخابية ..

وحتى يظهر التحقيق نوع السلاح الذي استعملته القاعدة لاسقاط الطائرة الروسية في ادلب فان كل مايجري الآن أو ماسيجري هو في نطاق انكماش اميريكي وتمدد روسي في الصحراء لافراغ المستطيل الحيوي من اي وجود اميريكي .. أي لن يحل الروس محل الاميريكيين بنفس الطريقة الفجة بالاحتلال المباشر او غير المباشر ولكنهم مصممون على طردهم من المنطقة بحيث تبقى تحت نفوذ حلفاء روسيا .. فيما الاميريكيون يستشرسون في الرد والدفاع عما بقي لهم في هذه الصحراء ..

في الحرب السورية تتآكل مفاعيل ونتائج مناورات النجم الساطع التي تبتلعها القوات الروسية مع حلفائها .. فالنجم الساطع انطفأ وسقطت ثماره وليس الطائرة الروسية .. وفي الفترة القادمة القريبة سيدرك حلفاء النجم الساطع أن من كان اسقاط النجوم واصطيادها هو غايته وهوايته .. يجب أن يحسب له ألف حساب فيما سيصطاده بعد النجم الساطع .. انتظروا وستسرون ..

 

Related Videos

هكذا قتل “الإخوان” طيارينا ومستشارينا وأطفالنا في سوريا. اعترافات صادمة لضابط دفاع جوي سوفيتي

Related Articles

SouthFront & The Saker video

February 02, 2018

Original video: https://southfront.org/end-wars-cheap-us/
Original article: http://thesaker.is/the-end-of-the-wars-on-the-cheap-for-the-united-states/
Many thanks to “RS” for redacting the original article for this video!

Now that the Neocons have hamstrung Trump, and with Trump’s planned impeachment and removal from office still in the future, the world must deal with the dangerous decline of the USA-led power bloc, because the Neocons are back in power and will do anything to reverse this trend. It is obvious that the only “solution” that the Neocons see is to trigger another war. So the question is: “Whom will they  strike?”

If the Neocons are out of touch with reality, then everything is possible, even nuking Russia and China. While not dismissing the Neocons’ capacity for violence, it is equally pointless to analyze clearly irrational scenarios, given that modern deterrence theories assume “rational actors” and not madmen running amok.

Assuming a modicum of rational thinking remains in Washington, DC, if the Neocons launch some extreme operation, somebody in the corridors of power will find the courage to prevent it, as Admiral Fallon did with his “Not on my watch!” comment which possibly prevented an attack on Iran in 2007. But the question remains: where could the USA-led power bloc strike next?

The Usual Scenario

The habitual modus operandi is: subvert a weak country, accuse it of human rights violations, impose economic sanctions, trigger riots and militarily intervene to defend “democracy”, “freedom” and “self-determination.” That’s the political recipe. Then there is “the American way of war,” i.e., the way US commanders fight.

During the Cold War, the Pentagon focused on fighting a large conventional war against the Soviet Union that could escalate into nuclear war. Nuclear aspects aside, such a war’s conventional dimension is “heavy”: large formations, lots of armor and artillery. Immense logistical efforts on both sides are required, which would consequently engender deep-strikes on second echelon forces, supply dumps and strategic infrastructure, and a defense in depth in key sectors. The battlefield would be hundreds of kilometers deep on both sides of the front line. Military defenses would be prepared in two, possibly three, echelons. In the Cold War, the Soviet 2nd strategic echelon in Europe was in the Ukraine! — which  inherited huge ammo dumps from Soviet times, so there has been no shortage of weapons on either side to wage the Ukrainian civil war. With the Soviet Union’s collapse, this threat rapidly disappeared. Ultimately, the Gulf War provided the US military and NATO one last, big, conventional war, but it soon became clear to US strategists that the “heavy war” era was over and that armored brigades weren’t the Pentagon’s most useful tool.

So US strategists, mostly from Special Operation Forces, developed “war on the cheap.” First, the CIA funds, arms and trains local insurgents; next, US Special Forces embed with the insurgents as front line soldiers who direct close support aircraft to strike enemy forces; finally, enough aircraft are deployed in and around the combat zone to support 24 hour combat operations. The objective is to provide overwhelming firepower advantage to friendly insurgents.

US and “coalition” forces then advance until they come under fire and, unless they rapidly prevail, they call in airstrikes which result in a huge BOOM!!! – followed by the enemy’s annihilation. The process repeats as necessary for easy, cheap victories over outgunned enemies. The strategy is enhanced by providing the insurgents with better gear (anti-tank weapons, night vision, communications, etc.) and bringing in Pentagon or allied forces, or mercenaries, to defeat really tough targets.

While many in the US military were deeply skeptical, Special Forces dominance and the temporary success of “war on the cheap” in Afghanistan made it immensely popular with US politicians and policy advocates. Moreover, this “cheap” warfare resulted in very few American casualties, with a high degree of “plausible deniability” should something go wrong. The alphabet soup agencies loved it.

But the early euphoria about US invincibility overlooked three very risky assumptions about “war on the cheap”:

First, it required a deeply demoralized enemy who felt that resistance to the USA was futile, because even if the US forces were initially limited in size and capabilities, the Americans could always bring in more forces.

Second, it assumed total battlefield air superiority by the US, since Americans prefer not to provide close air support when they can be shot down by enemy forces.

Third, it required local insurgents who physically occupy and control territory.

But none of these assumptions are necessarily true, and even better said, the USA-led power bloc has  run out of countries in which these assumptions still apply.

Let’s take a closer look.

Hezbollah, Lebanon 2006

This war involved Israel, not the USA, but it nicely illustrates the principle. While superior Hezbollah tactics and battlefield preparation played important roles, and Russian anti-tank weapons permitted Hezbollah to destroy the most advanced Israeli tanks, the most important result was that a small, weak Arab force showed no fear whatsoever against the supposedly invincible Israeli military.

British reporter, Robert Fisk, was the first person to detect the implications of this change. Fisk observed that in the past Arabs were intimidated by Israeli military power, that if the IDF crossed the Lebanese border, for instance, that Palestinians fled to Beirut. However, beginning with the 2006 Israeli assault on southern Lebanon all of that changed. A small, “outgunned” Arab force was not afraid to stand its ground and fight back against the IDF.

It was a huge change. What Hezbollah achieved in 2006 is now repeated in Syria, Afghanistan, Yemen, Iraq and elsewhere. The fear of the “sole superpower” is gone, replaced by a burning desire to settle the score with the USA-led power bloc and its occupation forces.

Hezbollah also proved another very important thing: the winning strategy against a superior enemy is not to protect yourself against his attacks, but to deny him a lucrative target. Put simply: “a cammo tent is better than a bunker.” The more academic way to put it is: “don’t contest your enemy’s superiority – make it irrelevant.”

In retrospect, the most formidable weapon of the USA-led power bloc was not the nuclear bomb or the aircraft carrier, but a huge public relations machine which for decades convinced the world of US invincibility, superior weapons, better trained soldiers, more advanced tactics, etc. But this is total nonsense – the US military is nothing like the glorified image projected to the world! When did the US last win a war against a capable adversary? The Japanese in WWII?

Russian Operation, Syria 2015

The Russian operation in Syria was neither a case of “the Russians are coming” nor “the war is over.” The Russians sent a very small force, This force did not so much defeat Daesh as change the war’s political context. The Russians made American intervention much harder politically, and also kept them from waging “war on the cheap” in Syria.

The Russians deployed to Syria without the capabilities which could deny American use of Syrian air space. Even after the Turks shot down the Russian SU-24, the Russians only deployed enough air-defenses and air superiority fighters to protect themselves from a similar Turkish attack. Even today, if the Pentagon decided to take control of Syrian airspace, the Russians don’t have enough air defenses or combat aircraft to deny Syrian airspace to the Americans. Such an attack would come with very real American political and military costs, true enough, but the realities of modern warfare are such that the tiny Russian air contingent of 33 combat aircraft (of which only 19 can actually contest the Syrian airspace: 4 SU-30s, 6 SU-34s, 9 Su-27s) and an unknown number of S-300/S-400/S-1 Pantsir batteries cannot defeat the combined air power of CENTCOM and NATO.

The problem for the Americans is a matrix of risks, including Russian military capabilities, but also  the political risks of establishing a no-fly zone over Syria. Not only would that further escalate the totally illegal US intervention, it would require a sustained effort to suppress Syrian, and potentially Russian, air defenses; that is something the White House will not do right now, especially when the results of such a risky operation remain unclear. Consequently, the Americans only struck sporadically, with minimal results.

Even worse, the Russians are turning the tables on the Americans and providing the Syrians with close air support, artillery controllers and heavy artillery systems, including multiple-rocket launchers and heavy flamethrowers, all of which are giving the firepower advantage to the Syrians. Paradoxically, the Russians are now fighting a “war on the cheap” while denying this option to the Americans and their allies.

Good Terrorists, aka “FSA”, Syria 2017

The Free Syrian Army’s main weakness is that it doesn’t physically exist! Sure, there are plenty of FSA Syrian exiles in Turkey and elsewhere; there are also many Daesh/al-Qaeda types who try hard to look like FSA; and there are scattered armed groups in Syria who would like to be “the FSA.” But the FSA was always a purely political abstraction. This virtual FSA provided many useful things to the Americans: a propaganda narrative, a pious pretext to send in the CIA, a fig leaf to conceal that Uncle Sam was militarily allied with al-Qaeda and Daesh, and a political ideal to try to unify the world against Assad’s government. But the FSA never provided “boots on the ground” like everybody else: Daesh and al-Qaeda, the Syrians, the Iranians, Hezbollah, the Turks and the Kurds. But since the Takfiris were “officially” the USA’s enemy, the US was limited in the support given to these Wahabi forces. The Syrians, Iranians and Hezbollah were demonized, so it was impossible to work with them. That left the Turks, who had terrible relations with the USA after the US-backed coup against Erdogan, and the Kurds, who were not eager to fight and die deep inside Syria and who were regarded with great hostility by Ankara. As the war progressed the terrible reality hit the Americans: they had no “boots on the ground” with which to embed their Special Ops or to support.

A case in point is the American failure in the al-Tanf region near the Jordanian border. The Americans and Jordanians invaded this desert region hoping to sever the lines of communications between the Syrians and Iraqis. Instead, the Syrians cut the Americans off and reached the border first, rendering the American presence useless. It appears that the Americans have given up on al-Tanf, and will withdraw and redeploy elsewhere in Syria.

So Who Is Next – Venezuela?

History shows that the Americans have always had problem with their local “allies”. Some were pretty good (South Koreans), others less so (Contras), but US use of local forces always has a risk: the locals often have their own agenda and soon realize that if they depend on the Americans, the Americans also depend on them. Additionally, Americans are not well known for having good “multi-cultural sensitivity and expertise.” They are typically not very knowledgeable about their operating environment, meaning that US intelligence usually becomes aware of problems way too late to fix them (fancy technology can’t substitute for solid, expert human intelligence). The US failure in Syria is an excellent example of this.

Having identified some of the weaknesses of the US “war on the cheap” approach, let’s examine a vulnerability matrix for potential target countries:

Notes: “demoralized enemy” and “air superiority” are guesstimates; “boots on the ground” means an indigenous, combat force in-country (not foreign troops) capable of seizing and holding ground, and not just small insurgent groups or political opposition.

By these criteria, the only candidate for US intervention is Venezuela, where successful US intervention would require a realistic exit strategy. But the US is already overextended and cannot afford to bog down in an unwinnable war. While the Venezuelan opposition could provide “boots on the ground,” the Venezuelan pro-American forces lack the capabilities of the regular armed forces or the Leftist guerrilla groups who tolerated the Chavez-Maduro rule, but who retained their weapons “just in case.” As for terrain, while Caracas might appear relatively “easy” to seize, the rest of the country is more difficult and dangerous. As regards staying power, while Americans like quick victories, Latin American guerrillas have repeatedly proven that they can fight for decades. Therefore, while the USA is probably capable of invading and ravaging Venezuela, it is likely incapable of imposing a new regime and controlling the country.

Conclusion – Afghanistan 2001-2017

Afghanistan is often called the “graveyard of empires,” and Afghanistan may well become the graveyard of the “war on the cheap” doctrine, which is paradoxical since this doctrine was initially applied in Afghanistan with apparent success. Remember the US Special Forces on horseback, directing B-52 airstrikes against retreating Afghan forces? Sixteen years later, the Afghan war has dramatically changed and 90% of US casualties come from IEDs, all the efforts at a political settlement have failed, and victory and withdrawal appear completely impossible. The fact that the USA has now accused Russia of “arming the Taliban” is a powerful indicator of the USA-led power bloc’s desperation. Eventually, the Americans will leave, totally defeated, but for the time being all they will admit to is: “not winning.”

Here’s the dilemma: with the end of the Cold War and Post Cold War, complete US military reform is long overdue, but also politically impossible. The present US armed forces are the bizarre result of the Cold War, the “war on the cheap” years and failed military interventions. In theory, the US should adopt a new national security strategy and a military strategy that supports the national security strategy, and then develop a military doctrine which would produce a force modernization plan incorporating all aspects of military reform, from training to force planning to deployment. It took the Russians over a decade to do this. It will take the Americans at least as long. Right now, such far reaching reform seems years away. Garden variety jingoism (“We’re number one!!”) and deep denial rule the day. As in Russia, it will probably take a truly catastrophic embarrassment (like the first Russian war in Chechnya) to force the Pentagon to face reality. Until then, the ability of US forces to impose their domination on countries which refuse to surrender to threats and sanctions will continue to degrade.

So is Venezuela next? Hopefully not. But if so, it will be one very big mess with much destroyed and little achieved. The USA-led power bloc has long been punching above its weight. Prevailing against Iran or North Korea is clearly beyond current US military capabilities. Attacking Russia or China would be suicidal. Which leaves the Ukraine. The US might possibly send some weapons to the junta in Kiev and organize training camps in the western Ukraine. But that’s about it. None of that will make any real difference anyway, except further aggravate the Russians.

The Russians have succeeded in turning the course of the civil war in Syria with what was an extremely small, if highly skilled, task force.  Now, for the 2nd time, President Putin has announced a major withdrawal of Russian forces.  In contrast, the thoroughly defeated US has not only claimed the credit for defeating ISIS for itself, but has ostentatiously failed to make any announcement about a withdrawal of its own, completely illegal and mostly useless, forces from Syria.  Will they ever learn from their own mistakes?

The era of “wars on the cheap” is over. The world is a different place than it was. The USA has to adapt to this reality, if it wants to retain some level of credibility; but right now it does not appear anybody in Washington, DC is willing to admit this. As a result, the era of major US military interventions might well be coming to an end, even if there will always be some small country to “triumphantly” beat up.

When sanity fails – the mindset of the “ideological drone”

December 22, 2017

When sanity fails – the mindset of the “ideological drone”

[Notes: This article, written by me, the Saker, is temporarily placed in the “Guest Analyses” section due to my current fundraiser.  It will be placed in the correct section when the fundraiser ends.  This article was written for the Unz Review.]

My recent analysis of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK has elicited a wide range of reactions.  There is one type of reaction which I find particularly interesting and most important and I would like to focus on it today: the ones which entirely dismissed my whole argument.  The following is a selection of some of the most telling reactions of this kind:

Example 1:

North Korea’s air defenses are so weak that we had to notify them we were flying B1 bombers near their airspace–they didn’t even know our aircraft were coming.  This reminds me of the “fearsome” Republican Guard that Saddam had in the Persian Gulf. Turns out we had total air superiority and just bombed the crap out of them and they surrendered in droves. We have already seen what happens when an army has huge amounts of outdated Soviet weaponry versus the most technologically advanced force in the world. It’s a slaughter.  Also, there has to be weaponry up the USA’s sleeve that would be used in the event of an attack. Don’t forget our cyber warfare abilities that would undoubtedly be implemented as well.  This writer seems to always hype Russia’s capabilities and denigrate the US’s capabilities. Sure, Russia has the capacity to nuke the US into smithereens, and vice versa. But if its a head to head shooting war, the US and NATO would dominate. FACT.

Example 2:

Commander’s intent: Decapitate the top leadership and remove retaliatory capability.
Execution:
Phase one:
Massive missile/bombing campaign (including carpet) of top leadership locations, tactical missile locations and DMZ artillery belt. Destruction of surface fleet and air force.
Phase two:
Advance into DMZ artillery belt up to a range of 240 mm cannon. Not further (local tactical considerations taken into account of course).
Phase three: “break the enemy’s will to fight” and destroy the “regime support infrastructure”
Phase four:
Regime change.
There you go….

Example 3:

I guess an American attack on North Korea would consist of preemptive strategic nuking to destroy the entire country before it can do anything. Since North Korea itself contributes essentially nothing to the world economy, no one would lose money.

These examples perfectly illustrate the kind of mindset induced by what Professor John Marciano called “Empire as a way of life” [1] which is characterized by a set of basic characteristics:

  1. First foremost, simple, very simple one-sentence “arguments”.  Gone are the days when argument were built in some logical sequence when facts were established, then evaluated for their accuracy and relevance, then analyzed and then conclusions presented.  Where in the past one argument per page or paragraph constituted the norm, we now have tweet-like 140 character statements which are more akin to shouted slogans than to arguments (no wonder that tweeting is something a bird does – hence the expression “bird brain”).  You will will see that kind of person writing what initially appears to be a paragraph, but when you look closer you realize that the paragraph is really little more than a sequence of independent statements and not really an argument of any type.
  2. quasi-religious belief in one’s superiority which is accepted as axiomatic.  Nothing new here: the Communists considered themselves as the superior for class reasons, the Nazis by reason of racial superiority, the US Americans just “because” – no explanation offered (I am not sure that this constitutes of form of progress).  In the US case, that superiority is cultural, political, financial and, sometimes but not always, racial.  This superiority is also technological, hence the “there has to be” or the “would undoubtedly” in the example #1 above.  This is pure faith and not something which can be challenged by fact or logic.
  3. Contempt for all others.  This really flows from #2 above.  Example 3 basically declares all of North Korea (including its people) as worthless.  This is where all the expressions like “sand niggers” “hadjis” and other “gooks” come from: the dehumanization of the “others” as a preparation for their for mass slaughter.  Notice how in the example #2 the DPRK leaders are assumed to be totally impotent, dull and, above all, passive.  The notion that they might do something unexpected is never even considered (a classic recipe for military disaster, but more about that later).
  4. Contempt for rules, norms and laws.  This notion is well expressed by the famous US 19th century slogan of “my country, right or wrong” but goes far beyond that as it also includes the belief that the USA has God-given (or equivalent) right to ignore international law, the public opinion of the rest of the planet or even the values underlying the documents which founded the USA.  In fact, in the logic of such imperial drone the belief in US superiority actually serves as a premise to the conclusion that the USA has a “mission” or a “responsibility” to rule the world.  This is “might makes right” elevated to the rank of dogma and, therefore, never challenged.
  5. very high reliance on doublethink.  Doublethink defined by Wikipedia as “the act of simultaneously accepting two mutually contradictory beliefs as correct, often in distinct social contexts“.  A perfect illustration of that is the famous quote “it became necessary to destroy the town to save it”.  Most US Americans are aware of the fact that US policies have resulted in them being hated worldwide, even amongst putatively allied or “protected” countries such as South Korea, Israel, Germany or Japan.  Yet at the very same time, they continue to think that the USA should “defend” “allies”, even if the latter can’t wait for Uncle Sam’s soldiers to pack and leave.  Doublethink is also what makes it possible for ideological drones to be aware of the fact that the US has become a subservient Israeli colony while, at the same time, arguing for the support and financing of Israel.
  6. glorification of ignorance which is transformed into a sign of manliness and honesty.  This is powerfully illustrated in the famous song “Where were you when the world stopped turning” whoso lyrics include the following words “I watch CNN, but I’m not sure I can tell you, the difference in Iraq and Iran, but I know Jesus and I talk to God” (notice how the title of the song suggests that New York is the center of the world, when when get hit, the world stops turning; also, no connection is made between watching CNN and not being able to tell two completely different countries apart).  If this were limited to singers, then it would not be a problem, but this applies to the vast majority of US politicians, decision-makers and elected officials, hence Putin’s remark that “It’s difficult to talk with people who confuse Austria and Australia“.  As a result, there is no more discernible US diplomacy left: all the State Department does is deliver threats, ultimatums and condemnations.  Meaningful *negotiations* have basically been removed form the US foreign policy toolkit.
  7. totally uncritical acceptance of ideologically correct narratives even when they are self-evidently nonsensical to an even superficial critical analysis.  An great example of this kind of self-evidently stupid stories is all the nonsense about the Russians trying to meddle in US elections or the latest hysteria about relatively small-size military exercises in Russia.  The acceptance of the official 9/11 narrative is a perfect example of that.  Something repeated by the “respectable” Ziomedia is accepted as dogma, no matter how self-evidently stupid.
  8. A profound belief that everything is measured in dollars.  From this flow a number of corollary beliefs such as “US weapons are most expensive, they are therefore superior” or “everybody has his price” [aka “whom we can’t kill we will simply buy”, perfect recent example here].  In my experience folks like that are absolutely unable to even imagine that some people might not motivated by greed or other egoistic interests: ideological drones project their own primitive motives unto everybody else with total confidence.  That belief is also the standard cop out in any conversation of morality, ethnics, or even the notions of right and wrong.  An anti-religious view par excellence.

Notice the total absence of any more complex consideration which might require some degree of knowledge or expertise: the imperial mindset is not only ignoramus-compatible, it is ignoramus-based.  This is what Orwell was referring to in his famous book 1984 with the slogan “Ignorance is Strength”.  However, it goes way beyond simple ignorance of facts and includes the ability to “think in slogans” (example #2 is a prefect example of this).

There are, of course, many more psychological characteristics for the perfect “ideological drone”, but the ones above already paint a pretty decent picture of the kind of person I am sure we all have seen many times over.  What is crucial to understand about them is that even though they are far from being a majority,  they compensate for that with a tremendous motivational drive.  It might be due to a need to repeatedly reassert their certitudes or a way to cope with some deep-seated cognitive dissonance, but in my experience folks like that have energy levels which many sane people would envy them.  This is absolutely crucial to how the Empire, and any other oppressive regime, works: by repressing those who can understand a complex argument by means of those who cannot.  Let me explain:

Unless there are mechanisms set in to prevent that, in a debate/dispute between an educated and intelligent person and an ideological drone the latter will always prevail because of the immense advantage the latter has over the former.  Indeed, while the educated and intelligent person will be able to immediately identify numerous factual and logical gaps in his opponent’s arguments, he will always need far more “space” to debunk the nonsense spewed by the drone than the drone who will simply dismiss every argument with one or several slogans.  This is why I personally never debate or even talk with such people: it is utterly pointless.

As a result, a fact based and logical argument now gets the same consideration and treatment as a collection of nonsensical slogans (political correctness mercilessly enforces that principle: you can’t call an idiot and idiot any more).  Falling education standards have resulted in a dramatic degradation of the public debate: to be well educated, well read, well traveled, to speak several languages and feel comfortable in different cultures used to be considered a prerequisite to expressing an opinion, now they are all treated as superfluous and even useless characteristics.   Actual, formal, expertise in a topic is now becoming extremely rare.  A most interesting kind of illustration of this point can be found in this truly amazing video posted by Peter Schiff:

One could be tempted to conclude that this kind of ‘debating’ is a Black issue.  It is not.  The three quotes given at the beginning of this article are a good reminder of this (unless, of course, they were all written by Blacks, which we have no reason to believe).

Twitter might have done to minds what MTV has done to rock music: laid total waste to it.

Consequences:

There are a number of important consequences form the presence of such ideological drones in any society.  The first one is that any ideology-based regime will always and easily find numerous spontaneous supporters who will willingly collaborate with it.  Combined with a completely subservient media, such drones form the frontline force of any ideological debate.  For instance, a journalist can always be certain to easily find a done to interview, just as a politician can count on them to support him during a public speech or debate.  The truth is that, unfortunately, we live in a society which place much more emphasis on the right to have an opinion than on the actual ability to form one.

By the way, the intellectually challenged always find a natural ally in the coward and the “follower” (as opposed to “leader types”) because it is always much easier and safer to follow the herd and support the regime in power than to oppose it.  You will always see “stupid drones” backed by “coward drones”.  As for the politicians , they naturally cater to all types of drones since they always provide a much bigger “bang for the buck” than those inclined to critical thinking whose loyalty to whatever “cause” is always dubious.

The drone-type of mindset also comes with some major weaknesses including a very high degree of predictability, an inability to learn from past mistakes, an inability to imagine somebody operating with a completely different set of motives and many others.  One of the most interesting ones for those who actively resist the AngloZionist Empire is that the ideological drone has very little staying power because as soon as the real world, in all its beauty and complexity, comes crashing through the door of the drone’s delusional and narrow imagination his cocky arrogance is almost instantaneously replaced by a total sense of panic and despair.  I have had the chance to speak Russian officers who were present during the initial interrogation of US POWs in Iraq and they were absolutely amazed at how terrified and broken the US POWs immediately became (even though they were not mistreated in any way).  It was as if they had no sense of risk at all, until it was too late and they were captured, at which point they inner strength instantly gave way abject terror.  This is one of the reasons that the Empire cannot afford a protracted war: not because of casualty aversion as some suggest, but to keep the imperial delusions/illusions unchallenged by reality.  As long as the defeat can be hidden or explained away, the Empire can fight on, but as soon as it becomes impossible to obfuscate the disaster the Empire has to simply declare victory and leave.

Thus we have a paradox here: the US military is superbly skilled at killing people in large numbers, but but not at winning wars.  And yet, because this latter fact is easily dismissed on grounds #2 #5 and #7 above (all of them, really), failing to actually win wars does not really affect the US determination to initiate new wars, even potentially very dangerous ones.  I would even argue that each defeat even strengthens the Empire’s desire to show it power by hoping to finally identify one victim small enough to be convincingly defeated.  The perfect example of that was Ronald Reagan’s decision to invade Grenada right after the US Marines barracks bombing in Beirut.  The fact that the invasion of Grenada was one of the worst military operations in world history did not prevent the US government to hand out more medals for it than the total number of people involved – such is the power of the drone-mindset!

We have another paradox here: history shows that if the US gets entangled in a military conflict it is most likely to end up defeated (if “not winning” is accepted as a euphemism for “losing”).  And yet, the United States are also extremely hard to deter.  This is not just a case of “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread” but the direct result of a form of conditioning which begins in grade schools.  From the point of view of an empire, repeated but successfully concealed defeats are much preferable to the kind of mental paralysis induced in drone populations, at least temporarily, by well-publicized defeats .  Likewise, when the loss of face is seen as a calamity much worse than body bags, lessons from the past are learned by academics and specialists, but not by the nation as a whole (there are numerous US academics and officers who have always known all of what I describe above, in fact – they were the ones who first taught me about it!).

If this was only limited to low-IQ drones this would not be as dangerous, but the problem is that words have their own power and that politicians and ideological drones jointly form a self-feeding positive feedback loop when the former lie to the latter only to then be bound by what they said which, in turn, brings them to join the ideological drones in a self-enclosed pseudo-reality of their own.

What all this means for North Korea and the rest of us

I hate to admit it, but I have to concede that there is a good argument to be made that all the over-the-top grandstanding and threatening by the North Koreans does make sense, at least to some degree.  While for an educated and intelligent person threatening the continental United States with nuclear strikes might appear as the epitome of irresponsibility, this might well be the only way to warn the ideological drone types of the potential consequences of a US attack on the DPRK.  Think of it: if you had to deter somebody with the set of beliefs outlined in #1 through #8 above, would you rather explain that a war on the Korean Peninsula would immediately involve the entire region or simple say “them crazy gook guys might just nuke the shit out of you!”?  I think that the North Koreans might be forgiven for thinking that an ideological drone can only be deterred by primitive and vastly exaggerated threats.

Still, my strictly personal conclusion is that ideological drones are pretty much “argument proof” and that they cannot be swayed neither by primitive nor by sophisticated arguments.  This is why I personally never directly engage them.  But this is hardly an option for a country desperate to avoid a devastating war (the North Koreans have no illusions on that account as they, unlike most US Americans, remember the previous war in Korea).

But here is the worst aspect of it all: this is not only a North Korean problem

The US policies towards Russia, China and Iran all have the potential of resulting in a disaster of major magnitude.  The world is dealing with situation in which a completely delusional regime is threatening everybody with various degrees of confrontation.  This is like being in the same room with a monkey playing with a hand grenade.  Except for that hand grenade is nuclear.

This situation places a special burden of responsibility on all other nations, especially those currently in Uncle Sam’s cross-hairs, to act with restraint and utmost restraint.  That is not fair, but life rarely is.  It is all very well and easy to declare that force must be met by force and that the Empire interprets restraint as weakness until you realize that any miscalculation can result in the death of millions of people.  I am therefore very happy that the DPRK is the only country which chose to resort to a policy of hyperbolic threats while Iran, Russia and China acted, and are still acting, with the utmost restraint.

In practical terms, there is no way for the rest of the planet to disarm the monkey.  The only option is therefore to incapacitate the monkey itself or, alternatively, to create the conditions in which the monkey will be too busy with something else to pay attention to his grenade.  An internal political crisis triggered by an external military defeat remains, I believe, the most likely and desirable scenario (see here if that topic is of interest to you).  Still, the future is impossible to predict and, as the Quran says, “they plan, and Allah plans. And Allah is the best of planners“.  All we can do is try to mitigate the impact of the ideological drones on our society as much as we can, primarily by *not* engaging them and limiting our interaction with those still capable of critical thought.  It is by excluding ideological drones from the debate about the future of our world that we can create a better environment for those truly seeking solutions to our current predicament.

——-

1.  If you have not listened two his lectures on this topic, which I highly recommend, you can find them here:

Empire as a Way of Life, Part 1 | mp3 | doc
Empire as a Way of Life, Part 2 | mp3 | doc
Empire as a Way of Life, Part 3 | mp3 | doc
Empire as a Way of Life, Part 4 | mp3 | doc

The Essential Saker: from the trenches of the emerging multipolar world

$27.95

The death of Kissinger’s Shuttle Diplomacy: the Jerusalem factor

December 07, 2017

by Ghassan Kadi for the Saker Blog

No man has possibly served the American Empire as much as Henry Kissinger did, and with all the literature, including screenplays, that have been written about him and his “shuttle diplomacy”, none probably described his biggest ever performance than Patrick Seale in his book “Asad”. After all, even though Kissinger is always remembered as the diplomat who has negotiated terms of settlement with the Vietcong, the Vietnam war was a fait accompli long before the negotiations took off, and if anything, his role was that of damage-control and face-saving; no more, no less.

Kissinger’s true, and perhaps only, major success story was his shuttle diplomacy that paved the way for the historic, albeit infamous, Camp David Agreement between Egypt and Israel.

Before Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy, a term and modus operandi he initiated, all indirect contacts between Arabs and Israelis were done via the UN and its multitude of organizations, and any would-be peace talks, were done via the USA and the USSR. Even the post Yom Kippur War peace deal that Kissinger himself was meant to broker between the Arabs and Israel, was also meant to involve the Soviets as equal partners to America in the negotiation process. But Kissinger managed to convince Sadat that he can negotiate a better deal for him directly with Israel, and without having to involve Egypt’s war time partner, Syria.

The rest is history, and since then, and technically until the 28th of September 2015, the Soviet/Russian presence in the Levant was reduced to a naval facility in the Syrian port of Tartous. This statement is not to undermine the huge effect of more recent Russian UNSC vetoes since the “War on Syria” started between 2011 and 2015, but effectively, the Russian presence took a turn when Russia engaged itself militarily in attacking terror organizations on Syrian soil on the 28th of September 2015.

In between Kissinger’s shuttle diplomacy triumph and the 28th of September 2015, emboldened by the New World Order single super power status, America reigned in the Levant single-handedly as the only power on the ground.

According to Kissinger’s achievements, some of which were put into American foreign policy law, ensuring the security of Israel became an American undertaking and all of the so-called peace negotiations, including those of Oslo, were only intended to ensure the security of Israel and to maintain the power balance grossly in its favour.

Driven by arrogance and self-grandeur, America did not foresee that it should have used the time it had at the top in order to twist the arm of Israel to coerce it to accept a peaceful settlement with the Palestinians. And every time the Palestinians were prepared to let go of more rights, Israel demanded more privileges. Not only did this inadvertently lead to the formation of Hamas, but even the very pliable and malleable PLO remained unable to reach a peace agreement, despite the large number of huge concessions it gave the Israeli side.

America has had a golden opportunity and ample time to negotiate an Arab/Israeli peace deal. No peace deal at all would keep all parties fully satisfied; especially the hardliners on both sides. That said, with the right intentions, America could have brokered an agreement that pleased a workable majority on both sides of the divide. However, in dealing with the crisis, America did not give Palestinian rights in specific, and Arab/Muslim rights in general, any consideration at all.

This is why all peace talks that followed the era of Kissinger all the way till the end of the days of John Kerry have failed; they were predestined to either fail, or to coerce Palestinians and the rest of Arabs to accept the unacceptable.

At the height of their arrogance, the Americans and Israelis never ever thought that a time will come during which they will lose the upper hand. They never even considered that a time will come during which the balance of power they thought they have set in stone was going to shift, let alone change.

Later on, as the “War on Syria” was waged, the “Anti-Syrian Cocktail” with all of its diverse elements and members; including the USA and Israel, were certain of an easy and prompt victory and the capitulation of the axis of resistance.

The irony is that despite failures to topple Assad, occupy Lebanon or even subdue the besieged and overwhelmed Gaza Strip, the American/Israeli arrogance remained steadfast in its efforts of self-destruction. Self-destruction, because without victories, without being able to enforce political settlements, and without any hopes or enforceable plans to twist events around to its advantage, the American/Israeli axis, make that the American/Israeli/Saudi axis, seemed to be steering itself from the leading role to that of irrelevance.

Whether the fruit of Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” was the love-child of the petro-dollar or the other way around, is a matter akin to what comes first, the chicken or the egg. The two went hand-in-hand, and unabated for a few decades; but the momentum has been lost and the Camp David Agreement zenith cannot be repeated; even on a smaller scale.

But the petro-dollar is also losing its breath. The rise of the joint Russian-Chinese might in particular, and BRICS more generally, is certainly putting the noose around the neck of the Greenback. The American trade deficits compounded with the massive physical gold reserves that the Russians and Chinese in particular are accumulating will soon make the petro-dollar look like “Monopoly” money. Even Saudi Arabia, America’s partner in the petro-dollar fiasco, has recently showed interest in trading with China with gold-backed Yuan.

It is as if the house of cards is tumbling down as what underpins its foundations, one by one, is crumbling.

From the Arab side, Saudi Arabia and its GCC remain within the American camp, and increasingly less covertly, on the Israeli side. GCC state officials have had several meetings with Israeli counterparts over the years, and of late, GCC officials have been making statements declaring that Israel is not an enemy. It is as if they are conditioning Arabs to listen to this rhetoric, clearly with the ultimate objective of normalizing relationships with Israel; something that the Arab street continues to refuse to accept, even in Egypt and Jordan despite their peace treaties with Israel and exchange of diplomatic representation.

In every step of the way however, the American Empire is losing not only its grip on reality, but also that of stature. And in every step of the way, America is putting its regional allies in the Middle East in more tenuous and even embarrassing situations.

Even Erdogan, the great enemy of secular Syria and one who has promised to go into Damascus, triumphant, to pray in the great Omayyad Mosque after the fall Assad, a supposed American ally who continues to be, thus far, a NATO member, finds himself and his national interests closer to Russia than to America. The Turkish-American schism started when the Obama administration did not listen to Erdogan’s ultimatum to choose between supporting Turkey or the Kurds.

Enter the Trump factor.

For better or for worse, and leaving the rest of the world aside if we can, Trump is hastening the process of making America irrelevant in the Middle East.

By moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem, many reactions have followed.

Condemnations came from right across the globe, not only from the Arab and Muslim Worlds. Even EU leaders like the French President and German FM have had their say voicing their shock and disappointment.

To “outsiders”, the reaction of Muslims and Palestinians may seem like an over-kill. Some cynics and critics are wondering about the significance of a tokenistic move by America vis-à-vis the bigger reality of occupation on the ground. Such voices are saying that Trump’s decision did not effectively change anything at all. Others may see the wave of rejection as an irrational Muslim upheaval that will eventually run out of steam. But the bottom line is that with Trump’s decision, America has moved itself further away from the few Arab and Muslim supporters it has left in the Middle East.

To say that this move has pushed America closer towards irrelevance would be an under-rated statement. By agreeing to relocate the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem, Donald Trump has sealed and dusted that deal that makes America totally irrelevant in the Middle East.

Even the Saudis, the staunch supporters of America and only vocal Arab supporters left, are too embarrassed to back Trump on his decision. So, in effect, with his decision to move the embassy to Jerusalem, Trump has galvanized rivaling Muslim factions and groups into a united voice on the single issue of Jerusalem. Even Saudi Arabia and Iran will not openly disagree with each other on this issue. Erdogan pre-warned Trump and referred to Jerusalem as a “redline”. But so was supporting Kurds. How many breached redlines does Erdogan need before he re-evaluates Turkey’s strategic alliances and perhaps even leaves NATO?

Tokenistic as it may mean to some, Trump’s decision means that no Arab or Muslim leader can be seen supporting it without risking street riots and even revolutions.

On the bigger picture however, American irrelevance means that the few Arab states and organizations that remained in hope that one day, perhaps one day, America will be able to broker for them a proper and just peace deal with Israel, have lost hope; and most likely permanently.

This new phase means that the successes of Kissinger’s “shuttle diplomacy” are already a thing of the past; effectively as of now. Apart from the much smaller role Russia played in Georgia in 2008, with Russia actively on Syrian ground, having succeeded in her first real ever military venture outside its borders since the demise of the USSR, the wheel of fate has made a one hundred and eighty degree turn. To this effect, America has catapulted itself out of the position of sole power and dominance, and in doing so, it inadvertently invited Russia back in with open doors.

Kissinger is not turning in his grave yet. He is alive and “well” and watching the mess of what subsequent American shuttle diplomacy, which ironically tried to shape itself on his image, has created and what it has made out of his achievements; not only in as far as giving America the sole power in the Middle East region, but also in terms of what the reversal of his achievements is going to eventuate into when it comes to his obsession with ensuring the security of Israel.

George Soros’s Self-Contradictory Positions on Racism

George Soros’s Self-Contradictory Positions on Racism

ERIC ZUESSE | 30.11.2017 | WORLD / AMERICASMIDDLE EAST

George Soros’s Self-Contradictory Positions on Racism

The international financier George Soros is condemned by the Israeli regime because he opposes that apartheid state — he regards its two-tier system that privileges Jews and disadvantages non-Jews who are Muslims, “Palestinians,” as being the barbarism that it so obviously is (except to the governments of the United States and its allies, who support — and the US even outright donates $3.8 billion per year to — the apartheid Jewish regime there). Earlier, in 1979, Soros had similarly opposed the anti-Black apartheid regime of South Africa. So, his opposition to apartheid is clear, and it is consistent.

However, in regards to bigotry against Russians, Soros intensely champions and funds that particular form of racism, and he has even carried out a major campaign to get EU taxpayers to pick up $50 billion of the cost to impose that racism specifically against Russians and against supporters of Russians who live in Ukraine, and against Russians and pro-Russians who still survive in the parts of Ukraine that in 2014 broke away from Ukraine after US President Barack Obama’s bloody anti-Russian coup just months before, had overthrown the democratically elected President of Ukraine, who was seeking to have good relations with both the United States and Russia. (The Obama regime perpetrated a coup which replaced that Ukrainian President and his allies in the legislature, replaced them by a racist-fascist or ideologically nazi Ukrainian regime that quickly began an ethnic-cleansing operation to kill or drive out the residents in the part of Ukraine that had voted more than 90% for the overthrown President and that refused to be ruled by the Obama-imposed anti-Russian nazis.)

In order to understand these self-contradictions (the anti-apartheid Soros, versus the rabidly bigoted-against-Russians Soros), one needs to understand their origins in Soros’s past, going all the way back to his childhood in an anti-Semitic secular-Jewish home (see page 22) with upper-class parents who had hoped that their having had Jewish ancestors wouldn’t be an insuperable barrier to their achieving personal financial success and personal fulfillment — they had hoped that they would be treated by their fellow-Hungarians as non-Jews because they didn’t believe in Judaism (the literal truthfulness of the Torah, the Pentateuch, the first five books of the Christian Bible).

Hungary was strongly anti-Semitic, and it became conquered first by Nazi Germany’s intensely anti-Semitic Adolf Hitler, who was even-more anti-Semitic, and then by the Georgian former theological student, Joseph Stalin’s, leadership of the communist Soviet Union, from which communist regime Soros fled, after his having thrived under the Nazis by having helped the Nazis to find, and strip the assets from, other Hungarians whom Hitler’s regime labelled to be “Jews.” Soros’s father had been imprisoned by the Soviet Union during and after World War I, and hated Russians. Then, Soros himself, having lived well under the Nazis, moved in 1947 to England to study at the London School of Economics, from which he received an MS in Philosophy in 1952, and then became hired in 1954, entry-level, by the Jewish merchant-banking firm of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander, which was the only financial company that would hire him. In 1956, he moved to NYC, working then for a succession of investment-firms, until setting up in 1969 his Soros Fund Management, which brought in other extremely wealthy people and grew exponentially.

Soros attributes his financial success to the ideas from his former philosophy Professor, Karl Popper, who actually had nothing to do with Soros’s success, but inside information had lots to do with his success, as normally is the case in the financial field.

Then, in 1979, “When I had more money than I needed”, he established his Open Society Foundation, which seemed to be at least vaguely adhering to his former philosophy professor’s philosophy, which was anti-dictatorial and pro-democratic, but increasingly after the 1991 end of communism in Russia, Soros’s Foundation has been functioning more and more clearly as a funder of Soros’s childhood hatred (even to the extent of ethnic cleansing or even genocide) of Russians, certainly not as any funder of democracy.

Therefore, Soros, who previously was understood in a naive fashion, as being simply anti-communist, is now much more clearly understandable as being anti-Russian.

Just as his father had hoped to be viewed without bigotry because he didn’t believe in Judaism, Russians had hoped to be viewed without bigotry because they don’t any longer believe in communism. However, George Herbert Walker Bush, and the US aristocracy which he represents, and of which Soros is actually a part, refuse to accept Russians as being just another group of human beings, with equal rights to all others, and insist upon crushing them, and crushing all who support their right to equal treatment along with the rest of humanity — including their national sovereignty (the rights of the residents in a land controlling that land), in peace.

If this sounds like it can’t be true, because it sounds like a portrayal of a psychopath, and because Soros has been so favorably described in the liberal press, then consider how else the portrayal of Soros has been slanted by ideological blinders: On 17 October 2017, a news-report in the liberal New York Times headlined “George Soros Transfers Billions to Open Society Foundations”, and indicated that:

In recent years Mr. Soros has moved about $18 billion of his own money into Open Society, making it the second largest foundation in the United States by assets, according to the National Philanthropic Trust. The only larger charity is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has an endowment worth some $40 billion and focuses on global health and development issues.

The benefits of such ‘charities’ were described, but the subtraction of those billions of dollars from the tax-rolls and the consequent increase in the tax-burden that non-billionaires must pay, went unmentioned, as did the increase in the billionaires’ control of public issues by privatizing these powers to such ‘charities’ and by their thereby diminishing democracy (i.e., diminishing control by the public — by the general electorate — moving these issues increasingly to control by the wills of billionaires). Beyond a certain point, the only usefulness to the owner that an added billion dollars has, is to increase his/her power — not to consume that added billion, in any case — and these ‘charities’ are thus intrinsically scams, against all non-billionaires.

An excellent description of the hypocrisy of the liberal Soros’s (and other such) ’charities’ was provided in an entirely accurate opinion-piece in the conservative Wall Street Journal, on 23 November 2017, titled “George Soros’s $18 Billion Tax Shelter”. The facts presented there would disabuse any political progressive of the deceit that Soros is, at all, one of them. There are few, if any, progressive billionaires — and none of them will be ‘donating’ anything to any ‘charity’, except to the Government, in a democracy, via taxes. The aristocracy is intrinsically this way — vastly more taking from the public than giving to the public — but aristocrats are ideologically treated as ‘heros’ by whichever commentators happen to admire a particular aristocrat’s ‘ideology’, which in reality is none at all except endless greed (differing from one-another only in their respective business-plans, because that’s all they actually are).

So: Soros’s hypocrisy regarding racism is part of a broader picture, which includes not only the rest of himself, but also includes all extremely wealthy individuals and their intrinsically destructive relationships toward the society-at-large, and especially toward democracy itself, because endless greed for power is what drives all of them, even the “loafers” amongst them (such as typically are second-and-more generation wealth, the IIs, IIIs, IVs, etc. aristocrats, who don’t have to work for anything).

%d bloggers like this: