Being In Time: Gilad Atzmon’s journey through post-modern crises

May 22, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

By Adam Garrie, theduran.com/

In Being In Time, author and musician Gilad Atzmon explores the historical and psychological basis for the many crises gripping the western world.

Many of the same people lament the state of a broad, however amorphous western society that has succumbed to the trends of hyper-identity politics, political and economic sectarianism, brutal financial capitalism and the death of industry and censorship in societies that still preach the self-righteous yet vague cause of ‘freedom’.

In Being In Time, author Gilad Atzmon offers a philosophical explanation for how these divergent trends are actually systematic outgrowths of societies simultaneously bewitched and confused by the abject failures of the three domineering ideologies of the 20th century: communism, fascism and liberalism.

Atzmon approaches how an uneasy calm in mid-20th century western states has given way to a world where the dams of free speech, prosperity and political predictability have been burst open leading to a flood of insecurity, third world style poverty and perhaps most importantly for Atzmon, the poverty of ideas.

Atzmon who has previously written about his personal struggles with and opposition to Jewish identity politics in The Wandering Who, takes his dialectical approach further, subjecting many contemporary and post-modern trends to the same scrutiny.

Such trends include, post-modernism, Cultural Marxism, post-Freudian social theory, the sexual identity agenda, post-modern attitudes to race and religion and the so-called populist political phenomena of Brexit and Donald Trump.

Atzmon calls his book a post-political manifesto, but it could equally be called a post-dogma manifesto. Atzmon laments a western world that has forsaken the Socratic method of embracing wisdom based on a combination of logic and ethics. Instead, Atzmon sees a western society obsessed with legal minutiae that he traces to strict Talmudic jurisprudence.

The book is very much in the tradition of the great secular conservative leaning sceptics and metaphysicists of the 19th and early 20th centuries. Those who have read Nietzsche or Spengler will recognise familiar diagnosis to modern problems combined with Atzmon’s unique world view shaped by the rejection of the Zionist creeds of his Israeli place of birth.

One might be so bold as to say that a great deal of geo-political philosophical commentary in the 21st century is largely shaped by people trying to either debunk or revise the manifestly ludicrous hypothesis of Francis Fukuyama.

At the dawn of the 1990s, Fukuyama in The End of History and the Last Man stated that history had ceased to move forward and was comfortably numbed to the neo-liberal realities that everyone had accepted.

The problem is that not everyone accepted them and even those who did, have largely been failed by them both materially and spiritually.

Atzmon doesn’t merely lacerate the post-Fukuyama developments in the metaphysical crisis currently gripping an increasingly hysterical liberal western establishment, but instead explains the root of these problems from the perspective of an historic prism illuminated through a combination of late-modern cultural analysis and Atzmon’s own unique trials and tribulations with the crises inherent in intra-Zionist Jewish identity.

I personally rarely recommend such books. I highly recommend this one.

The book can be ordered on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com

The book is now available here

 

Being in Time reviewed by June Terpstra

May 21, 2017  /  Gilad Atzmon

https://www.opednews.com/

Firmly rooted in the Western intellectual tradition, Gilad Atzmon’s “Being In Time” opens doors to shed light on the particular ideological constructs that influenced the schools and movements of left and right political wings that have produced a world in poverty and war, offering a matrix of controlled opposition embedded in modern, Jewish, secular politics to distract and destroy from within. Atzmon’s analysis, written like an intellectual jazz composition, celebrates Athenian philosophical calls to reason while urging the unpacking of political ideology to reveal the con-game being played to keep power in the hands of those who already have it.

In the first half of the book Atzmon offers a brilliant decoding of left and right wings of the Imperial Houses of Domination. On the left, he gives the reader Marx, Adorno, and the Frankenfurters defending principles of utopianism and what ought to be. To the right, are Breitbart, Murry and Hernnstein, playing Johnny one note for conserving the structures of power in hopes to hold on to their piece of that pie. Atzmon suggests that, “instead of looking at the world through the lens of the Right/Left dichotomy, or a particular ideological perspective, it will be more instructive to impose a meta-ideological method that juxtaposes ‘the humane’ i.e. the human condition and the political spectrum as a whole. Instead of imposing any particular ideology, be it Right, Left, Marxism, Capitalism, Liberalism, Fascism and so on I want to examine the relationship between a political system and the human condition.”

Atzmon engagingly utilizes the controversial Bell Curve of the Right Wing to show how a Jewish “cognitive elite” attempted to separate itself from the rest of society’s “unchosen” through selective breeding conflating genetic determination with heritability to fit what scientists call a power distribution so that a small group of exceptional performers overtake the rest. Atzmon poses that rather than increasing the performance of cognitive elites, the ideology of the curve has actually been constraining how all people perform.

A Return to Athens

In the post-political neighbourhood in which we live, much of humanity has been reduced to serving the interests of big money, mammon and oligarchy, with Left and Right, those two familiar poles of politics as we have always understood them to be, now indistinguishable and irrelevant. The freedom to think openly and speak clearly are but nostalgic concepts. Our Western Liberal Utopia has turned into an Orwellian dystopia. Gilad Atzmon

Atzmon, taking philosopher, Pierre Hadot’s advice, models the determinate individual separating himself from the All, be they Left or Right, by adding a difference which, as Plotinus says, is a negation. The best life depends upon becoming one’s true self via the intellect, which means to step away from identity politics, which teaches us to identify ourselves by our victimhood and oppressions in a competition for least powerful giving us an excuse not to act.

“Being in Time” is a peripatetic walk, from the man who brought us The Wandering Who,through the present post-political narrative. Intendedto make the ideologies driving the narrative available to all, thereby depriving it of its power, the book takes us on path to build moral courage. The chief consideration is how to popularize the walk of “being in time”, and to provide the individual, in a time of general confusion and dissolution, with a living and breathing moral basis for practical life.

The book can be ordered on Amazon.co.uk  & Amazon.com

The book is now available here

Germany and NATO – Preparing for a Fascist Repression in Europe?

May 15, 2017

by Peter KoenigGermany and NATO – Preparing for a Fascist Repression in Europe?

While Washington is in turmoil, Trump’s firing of FBI’s Director Comey being hailed by some, condemned by others and questioned with innuendo by yet another group of critics, it looks like the U-turn The Donald has supposedly made a few weeks ago, is fizzling out – into a cloud of confusion and chaos. And who are the beneficiaries of this chaos? – The Neocon-Zion-Democrats, who else?

Is Trump becoming, or has already become a Banana Republic dictator? Should he be tried as war criminal along with Obama, Bush, Clinton and their illustrious predecessors, all the way back to JFK and beyond, including those who instigated world wars and conflicts around the globe for the last 200 years? Sadly, there is no justice left in so-called international courts of justice today. They have all been coopted by the hidden bloody fingers, pulling the strings on Washington and Brussels.

Is Trump’s government about to collapse from the pressure of the Neocon-Zion-Demo-Division of the Deep State? Speculations no end, with emerging suggestion that the controversial President had already committed enough unconventional deeds to be impeached; and Russiagate, one of them, is just not going away, despite all logic to the contrary. It is another reflection of the idiocy of the presstitute media. But they get away with it, as long as brainwashed masses still swallow the mass-media’s lies and deceptions in their comfortable armchairs. The swamp in Washington is steaming – and about to swallow politicians from all walks.

Will there be a nuclear war? Who will strike first? Western war-mongering Pentagon and NATO generals hope – that the US will launch a pre-emptive strike against Russia and /or China. It would most likely be triggered by a false flag. For example, North Korea is made believe having launched a (nuclear) attack on Japan. Speculations to this effect have already circulated.

But what if Russia’s early warning system which is based on top-notch technology, detects such an intended first strike and reacts instantly? An atomic WWIII – with full destruction and almost no survivors? All these realistic ideas are tossed up and down – leaving a public on either side of the Atlantic in fear. And we know that fear and confusion are the best weapons to panic and stalemate a population.

Who will survive? – Who will be next? And some even go as far as speculating, who may replace President Trump? – Most obviously, his Vice President, Mike Pence, who fits the neocons’ gambit very well. After all, they were the ones who chose him on Trump’s behalf.

That’s the state of things according to the main stream media. The US is crumbling and the West along with it. The crumbling is very loud. The softer noises are becoming undetectable.

On the European Continent, hidden from the common ear and eye, clandestine warfare against European citizens is planned by – the German Bundeswehr, NATO and other European armed forces. They are preparing for subjugating possible social upheavals, if necessary killing their own citizens – that’s what NATO-inspired Brussels is up to. And the leader, who else, is NATO-inspired Germany – the front runner of European puppets, a position for which France is now competing with Macron – and perhaps winning.

As reported by Susan Bonath, independent investigative journalist, working as a regular contributor for the German Die Junge Welt (The Youth World) – something horrendous is emerging in a small north-eastern town of Germany’s landlocked Federal State of Saxony-Anhalt. In one of Europe’s most modern military training camps, an entire ghost town is being built at the tune of several hundred billion euros. Most of the German (or European) tax-payers have never heard of it. By 2018 the facility will be ready for troop training to fight European citizens in European cities, should they dare to go on the barricades against the atrocities of their leaders and oligarchs.

The concept is only new to Europe. The US, for years, has been building hidden garrisons around ‘vulnerable’ agglomerations – New York, Detroit, Chicago – and many more – ready to strike if massive protests should break out. For last November’s US Presidential election, they have been put on high alert. In fact, intensive troop movements could be observed from the air.

With Macron’s ‘election’ to President of France – or rather the Rothschild shoe-in – to protect the financial oligarchs of France and Europe, to shield unfettered capitalism from social disturbances, Europe is fast moving towards a state of fascist repression, accompanied by a fascist economy, a double whammy for the rich, and a double barrier aimed at eliminating peoples’ freedom to live decent and happy lives.

In his victory speech, Macron said as a priority that France will be first in ’fighting terrorism’. This is unconstrained support to the continuation of the ‘false flag’ approach, killing a few of your own citizens or policemen, to justify further and further clamp-downs on civil liberties. France, under Hollande, Washington’s ultra-puppet, has Europe’s most solid track record for false flag attacks. France may become the first country in Europe to put a permanent State of Emergency – akin to Martial Law – into her Constitution. Where Hollande so far had failed, Macron may succeed. Such an example would most like make school throughout vassal Europe. The training facilities in northern Germany, supported by Madame Merkel, to oppress and kill protesting Europeans fall right in line with Macron’s Machiavellian philosophy.

On the other hand, Greece is the epitome of the killing of a nation by financial instruments. The Greek allow it for reasons beyond logic. Maybe for fear not obeying and choosing the only way out, GREXIT, might be worse than financial strangulation? – These are apparently the arguments voiced, but unsubstantiated, by former Greek Finance Minister Varoufakis, who is ever so much interested in staying in the limelight, influencing public opinion by his self-styled stardom. Is this caviar leftist supporting his country’s demise as a deterrent for others who might want to regain sovereignty from the bulldozers of Washington and Brussels?

George Orwell comes to mind, when he says, referring to James Burnham’s The Machiavellians – “a democratic society has never existed and, so far as we can see, never will exist. Society is of its nature oligarchical, and the power of the oligarchy always rests upon force and fraud… Power can sometimes be won and maintained without violence, but never without fraud.”

This extends well to Globalization’s declaration of Justice: “All that’s yours is mine, and all that’s mine is mine.”

Wake up and beware, what’s brewing at the NATO-German urban training camp ground is a defense mechanism to assure the ruling class privileges will never be lost. Europeans – on the barricades now, before it’s too late!

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a former World Bank staff and worked extensively around the world in the fields of environment and water resources. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research, ICH, RT, Sputnik, PressTV, The 4th Media (China), TeleSUR, The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance.

Bahrain Crackdown: Regime Files Lawsuit to Dissolve Political Party

Local Editor

The apartheid Al Khalifa regime’s government filed a lawsuit Monday to dissolve a political party, the second-such organization it had targeted in the last year as part of an intense crackdown on opposition in the island nation.

Waad political party

The country’s so-called Justice, Islamic Affairs and Endowments Ministry accused Waad of “supporting terrorism,” according to a statement. The announcement, coming just a day after Bahrain’s parliament approved a constitutional amendment allowing military tribunals to try civilians, recalled the clampdown that followed the nation’s 2011 Arab Spring protests.

The party could not be immediately reached for comment, but it long had been the target of authorities. One Waad politician previously was arrested and briefly faced charges for speaking to The Associated Press in November during a visit by Britain’s Prince Charles and his wife Camilla.

Bahrain had already dissolved the country’s largest Shiite opposition group, al-Wefaq, and doubled a prison sentence for its secretary-general, Sheikh Ali Salman.

Regime forces, with help from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, crushed the 2011 uprising by opposition who sought political reform.

Since the beginning of a government crackdown in April, activists had been imprisoned or forced into exile. Bahrain’s main Shiite opposition group had been dismantled. Independent news gathering on the island also had grown more difficult.

Bahrain later made reforms following a regime-sponsored investigation into the 2011 demonstrations and the crackdown following it, but several of them had been overturned in recent weeks. Along with allowing military tribunals, the kingdom restored the power of its feared domestic spy service to make some arrests.

In January, Bahrain executed three men charged of a deadly bomb attack on police. Activists said that testimony used against the condemned men was obtained through torture.

Source: News Agencies, Edited by website team

06-03-2017 | 15:15

American Fascists Co-Opt Trump Protests Hiding Inside Civil Rights Movement

February 23, 2017

by GH Eliason

American Fascists Co-Opt Trump Protests Hiding Inside Civil Rights Movement

Over the last couple of years I’ve written volumes on fascists making inroads into American politics and civil life. With civil and human rights it starts with understanding a little about what’s known as the Four Freedoms. And there are many legitimate civil rights groups today that go under that banner.

In 1941, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt gave what became known as the Four Freedoms speech. He proposed that there were four freedoms that people everywhere in the world should enjoy. Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Worship, Freedom from Want, and Freedom from Fear. The speech was mainly concerned with national security and democracies that were heading into a world war. The first two freedoms are enshrined in the Bill of Rights. The last two were and are revolutionary.

Unfortunately ever since the Four Freedoms were first spoken it have been used politically to gear America up for war. They became a cornerstone of American Exceptionalism and intervention.

After World War II, the same groups that manned the gas chambers of the Holocaust took up the mantle of human rights victims and human rights advocates by starting groups named according to these freedoms and hiding among the legitimate rights groups.

By building a track record working for their own pet project civil rights, they thought no one would look at their own history very closely. They found over time by supporting legitimate human rights efforts, they could count on real activists to take up their causes.

What you need to decide is whether these are or aren’t the kind of groups you want support from. It’s that simple. Accepting the help is saying what they are and what they do is fine with you.

In reality when you start looking up their history, the first thing that comes up is files Released Under the Nazi War Crimes Disclosure Act.” I’m referring to the Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine, Inc.

This is the only human rights group has the distinction of taking its name from a speech by a US president they tried to assassinate. If you scroll down their Face Book page you’ll notice they are not shy about Ukrainian nazi flags or support of neo-nazis murderers like Pravy Sektor. This despite the fact that they say they subscribe to the “freedom from fear” part.

In an official statement from 2004 in Ukraine Weekly they are a little more open about their participation with Adolf Hitler. They were the prison guards that committed the Holocaust and Waffen SS that the Nazis were afraid of.

“Ukraine Weekly 2004 statement- National Executive Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine, Inc.

Over 55 years ago, a group of Ukrainian Americans, guided by a love for their native Ukraine created a committee in the United States that would support the liberation of Ukraine during World War II. Their committee supported the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian Insurgent Army as they fought against the Nazi and Communist occupation of Ukraine. This committee became the Organization for the Defense of Four Freedoms for Ukraine, named after President Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s famous address wherein he declared that all nations and individuals have the right to freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, freedom from fear and a freedom from want. Today, we reiterate our commitment to defend these four freedoms for Ukraine.”

What they don’t say is that during the war, they killed 3 million prisoners of war, 250,000 Jews including the first recorded act of Holocaust at Babi Yar. During the war, Ukrainian Americans were in charge of the SS battalions that were fighting and directed them from the USA. As late as 1945, the Ukrainian Diaspora was asking Adolf Hitler to fund new armies.

And they have never changed their political views. In 2014, they bought the bullets used to kill 100 protesters that were on their side sparking the Ukrainian coup against Victor Yanukovych.

According to the Huff Post, “Apparently, the aid doesn’t stop there. In a Newsweek interview, Ukrainian rightist Dmitry Yarosh admits that he has received U.S. dollars from the Ukrainian Diaspora. Yarosh is a leader of Right Sektor and has been training paramilitary fighters for almost 25 years. Moreover, Foreign Affairs notes that the Diaspora reportedly funds infamous Azov Battalion, a volunteer outfit which is enthralled by wartime Nazi insignia and iconography. Al-Jazeera remarks that “While the battalion is recognized by the Interior Ministry and provided with some arms, it is largely funded by charity from Ukrainians, wealthy businessmen, the Ukrainian diaspora and other European far-right groups.

Officially, Ottawa has pledged the Azov Battalion will not receive Canadian training or support. However, such pledges aren’t enshrined in law and the authorities have remarked defensively that Azov Battalion and a “small number of bad apples” shouldn’t be allowed to tarnish the entire Ukrainian defense effort. Meanwhile, within the Canadian Diaspora the Azov Battalion is reportedly a “touchy subject.” The Globe and Mail reports, “While opinions are divided, many see the 1,500-man Azov unit as being populated not with neo-Nazis and white supremacists, but with patriots willing to fight in order to rollback Russian-backed separatists.”

What does this have to do with the Women’s March or Trump protests that are following? They along with George Soros are providing most of the media coverage and providing tens of thousands of protesters to liven things up.

When you look at the list of groups supported by Soros, there is a couple that stand out which support the Women’s march. Common Cause sticks out because of what they did in Ukraine when the protests heated up. They killed people and stepped back to watch the carnage.

Another is the Four Freedoms Fund. This group started by Soros, to was designed to serve as

a conduit through which large foundations could fund state based open borders organizations more flexibly and quickly. It does this through ethnic-specific groups to coordinated state and national campaigns that advance immigration reform and defend the rights of immigrants.

“FFF’s mission is “to secure the full integration of immigrants as active participants in our democracy.” Designed to serve as a conduit through which charitable foundations could bankroll the activities of immigrant-rights organizations with maximum efficiency and flexibility.

The Four Freedoms Fund (FFF) was established in 2003 by Geri Mannion (a director with the Carnegie Corporation of New York) and Taryn Higashi (deputy director of the Ford Foundation’s Human Rights Unit). The Fund’s name was suggested by Craig McGarvey, a consultant and former program officer of the James Irvine Foundation, who was inspired by the Norman Rockwell paintings based on former President Franklin Roosevelt’s famous “Four Freedoms” speech.”

Is the Four Freedoms Fund tied to the Ukrainian Nazi supporting Defense of Four Freedoms? If this is the case then it’s legitimate proof of how much media and NGO pull the Ukrainian emigres have. While researching for an article I came upon this.

carnegie euromaidan press-carnegie.stfi.re 2016-06-15 01-23-06.png
Why is the Ukrainian propaganda website euromaidan press recommending reading at Carnegie Moscow? The Ukrainian website was started and is owned by Sviatoslav Yurash. He was the spokesman for Maidan, Dimitry and Yarosh’s spokesman. Euromaidan press has been in the process of whitewashing history for the last 3 years. They are making the perpetrators of the Holocaust into heroes. Yurash has been promoted to deputy director of the Ukrainian World Congress Kiev office.

Euromaidan press is propped up by the Ukrainian-American Diaspora. They are connected through the Atlantic Council, Stopfake, and Informnapalm. All three are tied into Ukrainian Intelligence Services.

In the US they provided Team Clinton with an almost unbeatable voting bloc during election cycle 2016. And this same group are behind the organization of and media supporting the anti-Trump protests.

How Much Influence Did They Have in the Election? This is the question to start with. First, let’s look at the raw numbers.

Starting in early June 2016, I started writing about real voting blocs that have the size to shape national politics. The simple math works like this. Out of 231,556,622 eligible voters, 25.6% voted for Clinton, and 25.5% voted for Trump. This is the final voter percentage tallies.

Out of the eligible voter pool, if we take 13%(low conservative reckoning) which make up the combined emigre bloc vote, their contribution is 30,102,360 bloc votes. Not shown at the CEEC link are the Middle East, South and Central American, Russian, or the Asian portions of the emigre bloc.

These articles show the background of the groups and how they work together en-bloc. I wrote them back then for today.

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]

Out of Hillary Clinton’s total count of 65,844,610 votes, the emigre bloc made up 45% of the total because 92,622,648 Americans didn’t cast their ballot. Keep that last figure in mind for later.

In real terms 13% became 45% because of low voter turnout. The emigre bloc percentage is based on total eligible voters (231,556,622) and the bloc number didn’t change. When the real vote total was known, it could be measured against the bloc. The value of the votes in the bloc skyrocketed with low turnout.

The reason Bernie Sanders would not have a snowballs chance in hell is the combined bloc vote. Bernie should have been a shoo-in for them. His father is Galician. Galicia is the still disputed land between Poland and Ukraine including the regional capital of Lviv. He claims Polish ancestry, and that is the true nationality border or no border. Both emigre groups claim to support Polish and Ukrainian people. He was the natural candidate for them except for one thing.

Until the fall of the Soviet Union, these groups were known as the anticommunist emigres. They are the children of groups that manned Hitler’s SS. The problem with Sanders is he calls himself a Socialist. He was not electable as long as this type of bloc vote exists. If Sanders got the nod to run in the general election, a deal would have been cut for a new Republican candidate at the convention. If you look back, things started to shape up that way.

The only thing a nationalist hates worse than an enemy outside his country, is the enemy within. For an anticommunist and nationalist, there is no greater enemy than a socialist. Progressive’s have already forgotten how Sanders was derailed. Most progressives don’t realize that very directly, it WAS the emigre community that did it.

Even after seeing Propornot, progressive, libertarian, and conservative publications are spewing the memes created by these same people that put them on lists to be hacked, isolated, and eventually shut down. It started when journalists started questioning the Syria narrative and supporting ISIS.

Did the “Berners” make any change to the Democratic party? “It is very concerning that Bernie Sanders is so intent on taking over a party that he’s not even a member of that he’d insult the beloved vice president — and really the president — about a failed status quo approach,” said Texas Democratic chairman Gilberto Hinojosa.” Was Sanders ever a viable candidate for the Democratic Party? Was he ever treated like one?

The only chance he had was to tap into the over 90 million that did not vote. It’s not coincidental that the number coincides with Obama’s 5% jobless report. These people are too disaffected to vote, but had they, would it be for another Democrat?

If what I’m saying is true then there would have to be some evidence of this in the Woman’s March/ Inaugural Protest and following protests. And there is, but it’s not pretty.

ny nazi ukie nazi.jpg

If you look at the gray hat in the left image and the one in the center of the right image, it’s the same hat. This particular hat, as well as the rest of the young man’s clothing are a designer version of the OUNb Nazi uniform. This is the same uniform the Bandera OUNb wore when they manned the Concentration Camps in Europe.

This is the same uniform that they wore when they starved 3 million prisoners of war to death. This is the same uniform they wore when they murdered over 250,000 Jews and close to 500,000 Ukrainians. Behind him is the Ukrainian flag.

Today, this is the same uniform he wore to support the Woman’s march. The CEEC and Ukrainian emigres are behind most of the press hype, support articles and organization for the Women’s march and all the subsequent protests.

Standing next to him and working in concert is Shia Labeouf, actor, activist, and a Polish Jewish- American by background. In the video below, if you turn the sound off and focus on the image, you’ll see them smiling at each other. The unknown Ukrainian- American nazi and Labeouf appear to be dancing together. Labeouf got good press for it.

What do the Central and Eastern European American emigres believe politically? Are they Democrats, Progressive, or even Conservative? Shown above , it is integral nationalism in the same sense that drove Adolf Hitler.

They still celebrate the people that tried to murder Franklin Delano Roosevelt. They still celebrate the Ukrainian Americans that commanded the SS battalions fighting against the USA.

Today they still celebrate the SS murderers that perpetrated the Holocaust. The most awesome weapon fascists have in 2017 are human and civil rights. Every time they successfully hide behind a legitimate cause, they win. Every time they create a “legitimate cause” they win. In the most cynical fashion progressives are being corralled into supporting memes they stood against for the last sixteen years.

For years progressives, centrists, and libertarians have complained about the George Soros inspired color revolutions around the world. Why are progressives flocking to the very people that want to take away their freedoms hoping they are protecting them?

What does this have to do with the Women’s March or protests that are following? Along with George Soros are the CEEC and Ukrainians are providing most of the media coverage. They are providing tens to hundreds of thousands of protesters depending on location to liven things up.

Among the nasty women at the protest, the Ukrainians provided their own homegrown version to show women how to protest Donald Trump.

femen 4-www.google.ru 2017-01-26 20-58-37.png

She looks like a nasty woman protester doesn’t she? What they didn’t say is what it takes to make them happy again.

femen at odessa massacre.jpg

As you can see, she has her clothes on. Behind her, almost 400 people were killed or are missing at Odessa in May, 2014. The integral nationalists burned them to death. This is Femen’s vision for your protests.

Among this group’s natural partners is the Syrian American Council. These Syrians are also integral nationalist emigres. By protesting a stronger vetting process the US may end up with the same problem the UK had in 2015.

The Prime Minister has come under under fire after the International Development Committee, which is investigating the Syrian refugee crisis, received evidence that ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups were running the camps within the war-torn country, but also in Lebanon and Jordan where the majority of the 20,000 heading for the UK are currently based.”

In one of the most cynical manipulations yet, Holocaust survivors are being asked their opinion of Trump’s refugee policy. While it makes a good headline, instead of asking about refugees, they should be asked if mixed groups should be vetted for terrorists too. A fair question would be “were they willing to let the Nazis that killed their families to emigrate with them to America.”

It was Steve Bannon that first breathed “Muslim ban.” And Soros media is sticking that statement down Trumps throat now. Maybe that part is for the better. The US government needs to say precisely what it means. The problem is while everyone and their brother are having their relevant article day, they are ignoring National Security issues.

Let’s look at how the CEEC and Ukrainian emigre groups look at Holocaust victims and Jews 2017. We know their families tortured and killed during WWII but that was over 70 years ago.

Dolinsky combined.jpg

Like many of the CEEC countries are managed by the American emigres, Ukraine is no exception. They were behind Yanukovych’s ouster and the nationalist uprising, murder, and the war in Donbass. Apparently, they still don’t think much of Holocaust victims or Jews in general.

The fact that they have to hide their background and try to keep their involvement quiet does not cover their sins. For Progressives, women’s rights, civil rights, or human rights activists, are these legitimate partners to protest with?

I’ve seen how our heroes, activists, journalists, and celebrities have completely sold their souls to support something no person with an iota of morality would do. I’ve seen them say and do things to derail candidates who would have been a million times better for those less fortunate around us. It’s unfortunate most pretend to fight the establishment, to act like they love the people more than they love the struggle and the relevance that it brings them. I am not one of those and I won’t continue to be until the good Lord takes me.” Cesar Vargas

I agree with Cesar Vargas wholeheartedly.

A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See

A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See
EDITOR’S CHOICE | 16.02.2017

A Documentary You’ll Likely Never See

James DiEUGENIO

It is not very often that a documentary film can set a new paradigm about a recent event, let alone, one that is still in progress. But the new film Ukraine on Fire has the potential to do so – assuming that many people get to see it.

Usually, documentaries — even good ones — repackage familiar information in a different aesthetic form. If that form is skillfully done, then the information can move us in a different way than just reading about it.

A good example of this would be Peter Davis’s powerful documentary about U.S. involvement in Vietnam, Hearts and Minds. By 1974, most Americans understood just how bad the Vietnam War was, but through the combination of sounds and images, which could only have been done through film, that documentary created a sensation, which removed the last obstacles to America leaving Indochina.

Ukraine on Fire has the same potential and could make a contribution that even goes beyond what the Davis film did because there was very little new information in Hearts and Minds. Especially for American and Western European audiences, Ukraine on Fire could be revelatory in that it offers a historical explanation for the deep divisions within Ukraine and presents information about the current crisis that challenges the mainstream media’s paradigm, which blames the conflict almost exclusively on Russia.

Key people in the film’s production are director Igor Lopatonok, editor Alex Chavez, and writer Vanessa Dean, whose screenplay contains a large amount of historical as well as current material exploring how Ukraine became such a cauldron of violence and hate. Oliver Stone served as executive producer and conducted some high-profile interviews with Russian President Vladimir Putin and ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

The film begins with gripping images of the violence that ripped through the capital city of Kiev during both the 2004 Orange Revolution and the 2014 removal of Yanukovich. It then travels back in time to provide a perspective that has been missing from mainstream versions of these events and even in many alternative media renditions.

A Longtime Pawn

Historically, Ukraine has been treated as a pawn since the late Seventeenth Century. In 1918, Ukraine was made a German protectorate by the Treaty of Brest Litovsk. Ukraine was also a part of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 signed between Germany and Russia, but violated by Adolf Hitler when the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union in the summer of 1941.

German dictator Adolf Hitler

The reaction of many in Ukraine to Hitler’s aggression was not the same as it was in the rest of the Soviet Union. Some Ukrainians welcomed the Nazis. The most significant Ukrainian nationalist group, Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN), had been established in 1929. Many of its members cooperated with the Nazis, some even enlisted in the Waffen SS and Ukrainian nationalists participated in the massacre of more than 33,000 Jews at Babi Yar ravine in Kiev in September 1941. According to scholar Pers Anders Rudling, the number of Ukrainian nationalists involved in the slaughter outnumbered the Germans by a factor of 4 to 1.

But it wasn’t just the Jews that the Ukrainian nationalists slaughtered. They also participated in massacres of Poles in the western Ukrainian region of Galicia from March 1943 until the end of 1944. Again, the main perpetrators were not Germans, but Ukrainians.

According to author Ryazard Szawlowksi, the Ukrainian nationalists first lulled the Poles into thinking they were their friends, then turned on them with a barbarity and ferocity that not even the Nazis could match, torturing their victims with saws and axes. The documentary places the number of dead at 36,750, but Szawlowski estimates it may be two or three times higher.

OUN members participated in these slaughters for the purpose of ethnic cleansing, wanting Ukraine to be preserved for what OUN regarded as native Ukrainians. They also expected Ukraine to be independent by the end of the war, free from both German and Russian domination. The two main leaders in OUN who participated in the Nazi collaboration were Stepan Bandera and Mykola Lebed. Bandera was a virulent anti-Semite, and Lebed was rabidly against the Poles, participating in their slaughter.

After the war, both Bandera and Lebed were protected by American intelligence, which spared them from the Nuremburg tribunals. The immediate antecedent of the CIA, Central Intelligence Group, wanted to use both men for information gathering and operations against the Soviet Union. England’s MI6 used Bandera even more than the CIA did, but the KGB eventually hunted down Bandera and assassinated him in Munich in 1959. Lebed was brought to America and addressed anti-communist Ukrainian organizations in the U.S. and Canada. The CIA protected him from immigration authorities who might otherwise have deported him as a war criminal.

The history of the Cold War was never too far in the background of Ukrainian politics, including within the diaspora that fled to the West after the Red Army defeated the Nazis and many of their Ukrainian collaborators emigrated to the United States and Canada. In the West, they formed a fierce anti-communist lobby that gained greater influence after Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980.

Important History

This history is an important part of Dean’s prologue to the main body of Ukraine on Fire and is essential for anyone trying to understand what has happened there since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. For instance, the U.S.-backed candidate for president of Ukraine in 2004 — Viktor Yushchenko — decreed both Bandera and Lebed to be Ukrainian national heroes.

Stepan Bandera, a Ukrainian ultra-nationalist and Nazi collaborator

Bandera, in particular, has become an icon for post-World War II Ukrainian nationalists. One of his followers was Dmytro Dontsov, who called for the birth of a “new man” who would mercilessly destroy Ukraine’s ethnic enemies.

Bandera’s movement was also kept alive by Yaroslav Stetsko, Bandera’s premier in exile. Stetsko fully endorsed Bandera’s anti-Semitism and also the Nazi attempt to exterminate the Jews of Europe. Stetsko, too, was used by the CIA during the Cold War and was honored by Yushchenko, who placed a plaque in his honor at the home where he died in Munich in 1986. Stetsko’s wife, Slava, returned to Ukraine in 1991 and ran for parliament in 2002 on the slate of Yushchenko’s Our Ukraine party.

Stetsko’s book, entitled Two Revolutions, has become the ideological cornerstone for the modern Ukrainian political party Svoboda, founded by Oleh Tyahnybok, who is pictured in the film calling Jews “kikes” in public, which is one reason the Simon Wiesenthal Center has ranked him as one of the most dangerous anti-Semites in the world.

Another follower of Bandera is Dymytro Yarosh, who reputedly leads the paramilitary arm of an even more powerful political organization in Ukraine called Right Sektor. Yarosh once said he controls a paramilitary force of about 7,000 men who were reportedly used in both the overthrow of Yanukovych in Kiev in February 2014 and the suppression of the rebellion in Odessa a few months later, which are both fully depicted in the film.

This historical prelude and its merging with the current civil war is eye-opening background that has been largely hidden by the mainstream Western media, which has downplayed or ignored the troubling links between these racist Ukrainian nationalists and the U.S.-backed political forces that vied for power after Ukraine became independent in 1991.

The Rise of a Violent Right

That same year, Tyahnybok formed Svoboda. Three years later, Yarosh founded Trident, an offshoot of Svoboda that eventually evolved into Right Sektor. In other words, the followers of Bandera and Lebed began organizing themselves immediately after the Soviet collapse.

The neo-Nazi Wolfsangel symbol on a banner in Ukraine

In this time period, Ukraine had two Russian-oriented leaders who were elected in 1991 and 1994, Leonid Kravchuk, and Leonid Kuchma. But the hasty transition to a “free-market” economy didn’t go well for most Ukrainians or Russians as well-connected oligarchs seized much of the wealth and came to dominate the political process through massive corruption and purchase of news media outlets. However, for average citizens, living standards went down drastically, opening the door for the far-right parties and for foreign meddling.

In 2004, Viktor Yanukovych, whose political base was strongest among ethnic Russians in the east and south, won the presidential election by three percentage points over the U.S.-favored Viktor Yushchenko, whose base was mostly in the country’s west where the Ukrainian nationalists are strongest.

Immediately, Yushchenko’s backers claimed fraud citing exit polls that had been organized by a group of eight Western nations and four non-governmental organizations or NGOs, including the Renaissance Foundation founded by billionaire financial speculator George Soros. Dick Morris, former President Bill Clinton’s political adviser, clandestinely met with Yushchenko’s team and advised them that the exit polls would not just help in accusations of fraud, but would bring protesters out into the streets. (Cambridge Review of InternationalAffairs, Vol. 19, Number 1, p. 26)

Freedom House, another prominent NGO that receives substantial financing from the U.S.-government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED), provided training to young activists who then rallied protesters in what became known as the Orange Revolution, one of the so-called “color revolutions” that the West’s mainstream media fell in love with. It forced an election rerun that Yushchenko won.

But Yushchenko’s presidency failed to do much to improve the lot of the Ukrainian people and he grew increasingly unpopular. In 2010, Yushchenko failed to make it out of the first round of balloting and his rival Yanukovych was elected president in balloting that outside observers judged free and fair.

Big-Power Games

If this all had occurred due to indigenous factors within Ukraine, it could have been glossed over as a young nation going through some painful growing pains. But as the film points out, this was not the case. Ukraine continued to be a pawn in big-power games with many Western officials hoping to draw the country away from Russian influence and into the orbit of NATO and the European Union.

Ousted Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych

In one of the interviews in Ukraine on Fire, journalist and author Robert Parry explains how the National Endowment for Democracy and many subsidized political NGOs emerged in the 1980s to replace or supplement what the CIA had traditionally done in terms of influencing the direction of targeted countries.

During the investigations of the Church Committee in the 1970s, the CIA’s “political action” apparatus for removing foreign leaders was exposed. So, to disguise these efforts, CIA Director William Casey, Reagan’s White House and allies in Congress created the NED to finance an array of political and media NGOs.

As Parry noted in the documentary, many traditional NGOs do valuable work in helping impoverished and developing countries, but this activist/propaganda breed of NGOs promoted U.S. geopolitical objectives abroad – and NED funded scores of such projects inside Ukraine in the run-up to the 2014 crisis.

Ukraine on Fire goes into high gear when it chronicles the events that occurred in 2014, resulting in the violent overthrow of President Yanukovych and sparking the civil war that still rages. In the 2010 election, when Yushchenko couldn’t even tally in the double-digits, Yanukovych faced off against and defeated Yulia Tymoshenko, a wealthy oligarch who had served as Yushchenko’s prime minister.

After his election, Yanukovych repealed Bandera’s title as a national hero. However, because of festering economic problems, the new president began to search for an economic partner who could provide a large loan. He first negotiated with the European Union, but these negotiations bogged down due to the usual draconian demands made by the International Monetary Fund.

So, in November 2013, Yanukovych began to negotiate with Russian President Putin who offered more generous terms. But Yanukovych’s decision to delay the association agreement with the E.U. provoked street protests in Kiev especially from the people of western Ukraine.

As Ukraine on Fire points out, other unusual occurrences also occurred, including the emergence of three new TV channels – Spilno TV, Espreso TV, and Hromadske TV – going on the air between Nov. 21 and 24, with partial funding from the U.S. Embassy and George Soros.

Nazi symbols on helmets worn by members of Ukraine’s Azov battalion. (As filmed by a Norwegian film crew and shown on German TV)

Pro-E.U. protests in the Maidan square in central Kiev also grew more violent as ultra-nationalist street fighters from Lviv and other western areas began to pour in and engage in provocations, many of which were sponsored by Yarosh’s Right Sektor. The attacks escalated from torch marches similar to Nazi days to hurling Molotov cocktails at police to driving large tractors into police lines – all visually depicted in the film. As Yanukovich tells Stone, when this escalation happened, it made it impossible for him to negotiate with the Maidan crowd.

One of the film’s most interesting interviews is with Vitaliy Zakharchenko, who was Minister of the Interior at the time responsible for law enforcement and the conduct of the police. He traces the escalation of the attacks from Nov. 24 to 30, culminating with a clash between police and protesters over the transport of a giant Christmas tree into the Maidan. Zakharchenko said he now believes this confrontation was secretly approved by Serhiy Lyovochkin, a close friend of U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt, as a pretext to escalate the violence.

At this point, the film addresses the direct involvement of U.S. politicians and diplomats. Throughout the crisis, American politicians visited Maidan, as both Republicans and Democrats, such as Senators John McCain, R-Arizona, and Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut. stirred up the crowds. Yanukovych also said he was in phone contact with Vice President Joe Biden, who he claims was misleading him about how to handle the crisis.

The film points out that the real center of American influence in the Kiev demonstrations was with Ambassador Pyatt and Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland. As Parry points out, although Nuland was serving under President Obama, her allegiances were really with the neoconservative movement, most associated with the Republican Party.

Her husband is Robert Kagan, who worked as a State Department propagandist on the Central American wars in the 1980s and was the co-founder of the Project for the New American Century in the 1990s, the group that organized political and media pressure for the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Kagan also was McCain’s foreign policy adviser in the 2008 presidential election (although he threw his support behind Hillary Clinton in the 2016 race).

Adept Manipulators

As Parry explained, the neoconservatives have become quite adept at disguising their true aims and have powerful allies in the mainstream press. This combination has allowed them to push the foreign policy debate to such extremes that, when anyone objects, they can be branded a Putin or Yanukovych “apologist.”

Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Victoria Nuland during a press conference at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine, on Feb. 7, 2014. (U.S. State Department photo)

Thus, Pyatt’s frequent meetings with the demonstrators in the embassy and Nuland’s handing out cookies to protesters in the Maidan were not criticized as American interference in a sovereign state, but were praised as “promoting democracy” abroad. However, as the Maidan crisis escalated, Ukrainian ultra-nationalists moved to the front, intensifying their attacks on police. Many of these extremists were disciples of Bandera and Lebed. By February 2014, they were armed with shotguns and rapid-fire handguns.

On Feb. 20, 2014, a mysterious sniper, apparently firing from a building controlled by the Right Sektor, shot both police and protesters, touching off a day of violence that left about 14 police and some 70 protesters dead.

With Kiev slipping out of control, Yanukovich was forced to negotiate with representatives from France, Poland and Germany. On Feb. 21, he agreed to schedule early elections and to accept reduced powers. At the urging of Vice President Biden, Yanukovych also pulled back the police.

But the agreement – though guaranteed by the European nations – was quickly negated by renewed attacks from the Right Sektor and its street fighters who seized government buildings. Russian intelligence services got word that an assassination plot was in the works against Yanukovych, who fled for his life.

On Feb. 24, Yanukovych asked permission to enter Russia for his safety and the Ukrainian parliament (or Rada), effectively under the control of the armed extremists, voted to remove Yanukovych from office in an unconstitutional manner because the courts were not involved and the vote to impeach him did not reach the mandatory threshold. Despite these irregularities, the U.S. and its European allies quickly recognized the new government as “legitimate.”

Calling a Coup a Coup

But the ouster of Yanukovych had all the earmarks of a coup. An intercepted phone call, apparently in early February, between Nuland and Pyatt revealed that they were directly involved in displacing Yanukovych and choosing his successor. The pair reviewed the field of candidates with Nuland favoring Arseniy Yatsenyuk, declaring “Yats is the guy” and discussing with Pyatt how to “glue this thing.” Pyatt wondered about how to “midwife this thing.” They sounded like Gilded Age millionaires in New York deciding who should become the next U.S. president. On Feb. 27, Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister of Ukraine.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko shakes hands with U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt as U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry shakes hands with Ukrainian Foreign Minister Pavlo Klimkin in Kyiv, Ukraine, on July 7, 2016.[State Department Photo)

Not everyone in Ukraine agreed with the new regime, however. Crimea, which had voted heavily for Yanukovych, decided to hold a referendum on whether to split from Ukraine and become a part of Russia. The results of the referendum were overwhelming. Some 96 percent of Crimeans voted to unite with Russia. Russian troops – previously stationed in Crimea under the Sevastopol naval base agreement – provided security against Right Sektor and other Ukrainian forces moving against the Crimean secession, but there was no evidence of Russian troops intimidating voters or controlling the elections. The Russian government then accepted the reunification with Crimea, which had historically been part of Russia dating back hundreds of years.

Two eastern provinces, Donetsk and Lugansk, also wanted to split off from Ukraine and also conducted a referendum in support of that move. But Putin would not agree to the request from the two provinces, which instead declared their own independence, a move that the new government in Kiev denounced as illegal. The Kiev regime also deemed the insurgents “terrorists” and launched an “anti-terrorism operation” to crush the resistance. Ultra-nationalist and even neo-Nazi militias, such as the Azov Battalion, took the lead in the bloody fighting.

Anti-coup demonstrations also broke out in the city of Odessa to the south. Ukrainian nationalist leader Andrei Parubiy went to Odessa, and two days later, on May 2, 2014, his street fighters attacked the demonstrators, driving them into the Trade Union building, which was then set on fire. Forty-two people were killed, some of whom jumped to their deaths.

‘Other Side of the Story’

If the film just got across this “other side of the story,” it would provide a valuable contribution since most of this information has been ignored or distorted by the West’s mainstream media, which simply blames the Ukraine crisis on Vladimir Putin. But in addition to the fine work by scenarist Vanessa Dean, the direction by Igor Lopatonok and the editing by Alexis Chavez are extraordinarily skillful and supple.

Screen shot of the fatal fire in Odessa, Ukraine, on May 2, 2014. (From RT video)

The 15-minute prologue, where the information about the Nazi collaboration by Bandera and Lebed is introduced, is an exceptional piece of filmmaking. It moves at a quick pace, utilizing rapid cutting and also split screens to depict photographs and statistics simultaneously. Lopatonok also uses interactive graphics throughout to transmit information in a visual and demonstrative manner.

Stone’s interviews with Putin and Yanukovych are also quite newsworthy, presenting a side of these demonized foreign leaders that has been absent in the propagandistic Western media.

Though about two hours long, the picture has a headlong tempo to it. If anything, it needed to slow down at points since such a large amount of information is being communicated. On the other hand, it’s a pleasure to watch a documentary that is so intelligently written, and yet so remarkably well made.

When the film ends, the enduring message is similar to those posed by the American interventions in Vietnam and Iraq. How could the State Department know so little about what it was about to unleash, given Ukraine’s deep historical divisions and the risk of an escalating conflict with nuclear-armed Russia?

In Vietnam, Americans knew little about the country’s decades-long struggle of the peasantry to be free from French and Japanese colonialism. Somehow, America was going to win their hearts and minds and create a Western-style “democracy” when many Vietnamese simply saw the extension of foreign imperialism.

In Iraq, President George W. Bush and his coterie of neocons was going to oust Saddam Hussein and create a Western-style democracy in the Middle East, except that Bush didn’t know the difference between Sunni and Shiite Moslems and how Iraq was likely to split over sectarian rivalries and screw up his expectations.

Similarly, the message of Ukraine on Fire is that short-sighted, ambitious and ideological officials – unchecked by their superiors – created something even worse than what existed. While high-level corruption persists today in Ukraine and may be even worse than before, the conditions of average Ukrainians have deteriorated.

And, the Ukraine conflict has reignited the Cold War by moving Western geopolitical forces onto Russia’s most sensitive frontier, which, as scholar Joshua Shifrinson has noted, violates a pledge made by Secretary of State James Baker in February 1990 as the Soviet Union peacefully accepted the collapse of its military influence in East Germany and eastern Europe. (Los Angeles Times, 5/30/ 2016)

This film also reminds us that what happened in Ukraine was a bipartisan effort. It was begun under George W. Bush and completed under Barack Obama. As Oliver Stone noted in the discussion that followed the film’s premiere in Los Angeles, the U.S. painfully needs some new leadership reminiscent of Franklin Roosevelt and John Kennedy, people who understand how America’s geopolitical ambitions must be tempered by on-the-ground realities and the broader needs of humanity to be freed from the dangers of all-out war.

President Trump: Nationalist Capitalism, An Alternative to Globalization?

Global Research, January 28, 2017
CIA-trump

During his inaugural speech, President Trump clearly and forcefully outlined the strategic political-economic policies he will pursue over the next four years.  Anti-Trump journalist, editorialists, academics and experts, who appear in the Financial Times, New York Times, Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal have repeatedly distorted and lied about the President’s program as well as his critique of existing and past policies.

We will begin by seriously discussing President Trump’s critique of the contemporary political economy and proceed to elaborate on his alternatives and its weaknesses.

President Trump’s Critique of the Ruling Class

The centerpiece of Trump’s critique of the current ruling elite is the negative impact of its form of globalization on US production, trade and fiscal imbalances and on the labor market.  Trump cites the fact that US industrial capitalism has drastically shifted the locus of its investments, innovations and profits overseas as an example of globalization’s negative effects.  For two decades many politicians and pundits have bemoaned the loss of well-paid jobs and stable local industries as part of their campaign rhetoric or in public meetings, but none have taken any effective action against these most harmful aspects of globalization.  Trump denounced them as “all talk and no action” while promising to end the empty speeches and implement major changes.

President Trump targeted importers who bring in cheap products from overseas manufacturers for the American market undermining US producers and workers.  His economic strategy of prioritizing US industries is an implicit critique of the shift from productive capital to financial and speculative capital under the previous four administrations.  His inaugural address attacking the elites who abandon the ‘rust belt’ for Wall Street is matched by his promise to the working class: “Hear these words!  You will never be ignored again.” Trump’s own words portray the ruling class ‘as pigs at the trough’ (Financial Times, 1/23/2017, p. 11)

Trump’s Political-Economic Critique

President Trump emphasizes market negotiations with overseas partners and adversaries.  He has repeatedly criticized the mass media and politicians’ mindless promotion of free markets and aggressive militarism as undermining the nation’s capacity to negotiate profitable deals.

President Trump’s immigration policy is closely related to his strategic ‘America First’ labor policy.  Massive inflows of immigrant labor have been used to undermine US workers’ wages, labor rights and stable employment.  This was first documented in the meat packing industry, followed by textile, poultry and construction industries.  Trump’s proposal is to limit immigration to allow US workers to shift the balance of power between capital and labor and strengthen the power of organized labor to negotiate wages, conditions and benefits.  Trump’s critique of mass immigration is based on the fact that skilled American workers have been available for employment in the same sectors if wages were raised and work conditions were improved to permit dignified, stable living standards for their families.

President Trump’s Political Critique

Trump points to trade agreements, which have led to huge deficits, and concludes that US negotiators have been failures.  He argues that previous US presidents have signed multi-lateral agreements, to secure military alliances and bases, at the expense of negotiating job-creating economic pacts.  His presidency promises to change the equation:  He wants to tear up or renegotiate unfavorable economic treaties while reducing US overseas military commitments and demands NATO allies shoulder more of their own defense budgets.  Immediately upon taking office Trump canceled the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and convoked a meeting with Canada and Mexico to renegotiate NAFTA.

Trump’s agenda has featured plans for hundred-billion dollar infrastructure projects, including building controversial oil and gas pipelines from Canada to the US Gulf.  It is clear that these pipelines violate existing treaties with indigenous people and threaten ecological mayhem.  However, by prioritizing the use of American-made construction material and insisting on hiring only US workers, his controversial policies will form the basis for developing well-paid American jobs.

The emphasis on investment and jobs in the US is a complete break with the previous Administration, where President Obama focused on waging multiple wars in the Middle East , increasing public debt and the trade deficit.

Trump’s inaugural address issued a stern promise: “The American carnage stops right now and stops right here!”  This resonated with a huge sector of the working class and was spoken before an assemblage of the very architects of four decades of job-destroying globalization.  ‘Carnage’ carried a double meaning:  Widespread carnage resulted from Obama and other administrations’ destruction of domestic jobs resulting in decay and bankruptcy of rural, small town and urban communities.  This domestic carnage was the other side of the coin of their policies of conducting endless overseas wars spreading carnage to three continents.  The last fifteen years of political leadership spread domestic carnage by allowing the epidemic of drug addiction (mostly related to uncontrolled synthetic opiate prescriptions) to kill hundreds of thousands of mostly young American’s and destroy the lives of millions.  Trump promised to finally address this ‘carnage’ of wasted lives.   Unfortunately, he did not hold ‘Big Pharma’ and the medical community responsible for its role in spreading drug addiction into the deepest corners of the economically devastated rural America .  Trump criticized previous elected officials for authorizing huge military subsidies to ‘allies’ while making it clear that his critique did not include US military procurement policies and would not contradict his promise to ‘reinforce old alliances’ (NATO).

Truth and Lies: Garbage Journalists and Arm Chair Militarists

Among the most outrageous example of the mass media’s hysteria about Trump’s New Economy is the systematic and vitriolic series of fabrications designed to obscure the grim national reality that Trump has promised to address.  We will discuss and compare the accounts published by ‘garbage journalists (GJ’s)’ and present a more accurate version of the situation.

The respectable garbage journalists of the Financial Timesclaim that Trump wants to ‘destroy world trade’.  In fact, Trumps has repeatedly stated his intention to increase international trade.  What Trump proposes is to increase US world trade from the inside, rather than from overseas.  He seeks to re-negotiate the terms of multilateral and bilateral trade agreements to secure greater reciprocity with trading partners.  Under Obama, the US was more aggressive in imposing trade tariffs that any other country in the OECD.

Garbage journalists label Trump as a ‘protectionist’,confusing his policies to re-industrialize the economy with autarky.  Trump will promote exports and imports, retain an open economy, while increasing the role of the US as a producer and exporter.. The US will become more selective in its imports.  Trump will favor the growth of manufacturing exporters and increase imports of primary commodities and advanced technology while reducing the import of automobiles, steel and household consumer products.

Trump’s opposition to ‘globalization’ has been conflated by the garbage journalists of the Washington Post as a dire threat to the ‘the post-Second World War economic order’.  In fact, vast changes have already rendered the old order obsolete and attempts to retain it have led to crises, wars and more decay.  Trump has recognized the obsolete nature of the old economic order and stated that change is necessary.

The Obsolete Old Order and the Dubious New Economy

At the end of the Second World War, most of Western Europe and Japan resorted to highly restrictive ‘protectionist’ industrial and monetary policies to rebuild their economies.  Only after a period of prolonged recovery did Germany and Japan carefully and selectively liberalize their economic policies.

In recent decades, Russia was drastically transformed from a powerful collectivist economy to a capitalist vassal-gangster oligarchy and more recently to a reconstituted mixed economy and strong central state.  China has been transformed from a collectivist economy, isolated from world trade, into the world’s second most powerful economy, displacing the US as Asia and Latin America ’s largest trading partner.

Once controlling 50% of world trade, the US share is now less than 20%.  This decline is partly due to the dismantling of its industrial economy when its manufacturers moved their factories abroad.

Despite the transformation of the world order, recent US presidents have failed to recognize the need to re-organize the American political economy.  Instead of recognizing, adapting and accepting shifts in power and market relations, they sought to intensify previous patterns of dominance through war, military intervention and bloody destructive ‘regime changes’ – thus devastating, rather than creating markets for US goods. Instead of recognizing China’s immense economic power and seek to re-negotiate trade and co-operative agreements, they have stupidly excluded China from regional and international trade pacts, to the extent of crudely bullying their junior Asian trade partners, and launching a policy of military encirclement and provocation in the South China Seas.  While Trump recognized these changes and the need to renegotiate economic ties, his cabinet appointees seek to extend Obama’s militarist policies of confrontation.

Under the previous administrations, Washington ignored Russia ’s resurrection, recovery and growth as a regional and world power.  When reality finally took root, previous US administrations increased their meddling among the Soviet Union’s former allies and set up military bases and war exercises on Russia ’s borders.  Instead of deepening trade and investment with Russia , Washington spent billions on sanctions and military spending – especially fomenting the violent putchist regime in Ukraine .  Obama’s policies promoting the violent seizure of power in Ukraine, Syria and Libya were motivated by his desire to overthrow governments friendly to Russia – devastating those countries and ultimately strengthening Russia’s will to consolidate and defend its borders and to form new strategic alliances.

Early in his campaign, Trump recognized the new world realities and proposed to change the substance, symbols, rhetoric and relations with adversaries and allies – adding up to a New Economy.

First and foremost, Trump looked at the disastrous wars in the Middle East and recognized the limits of US military power:  The US could not engage in multiple, open-ended wars of conquest and occupation in the Middle East, North Africa and Asia without paying major domestic costs.

Secondly, Trump recognized that Russia was not a strategic military threat to the United States .  Furthermore, the Russian government under Vladimir Putin was willing to cooperate with the US to defeat a mutual enemy – ISIS and its terrorist networks.  Russia was also keen to re-open its markets to the US investors, who were also anxious to return after years of the Obama-Clinton-Kerry imposed sanctions.  Trump, the realist, proposes to end sanctions and restore favorable market relations.

Thirdly, it is clear to Trump that the US wars in the Middle East imposed enormous costs with minimal benefits for the US economy.  He wants to increase market relations with the regional economic and military powers, like Turkey , Israel and the Gulf monarchies.

Trump is not interested in Palestine , Yemen , Syria or the Kurds – which do not offer much investment and trade opportunities.  He ignores the enormous regional economic and military power of Iran ,  Nevertheless Trump has proposed to re-negotiate the recent six-nation agreement with Iran in order to improve the US side of the bargain.  His hostile campaign rhetoricagainst Tehran may have been designed to placate Israel and its powerful domestic ‘Israel-Firsters’ fifth column.  This certainly came into conflict with his ‘America First’ pronouncements.  It remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will retain a ‘show’ of submission to the Zionist project of an expansionist Israel while proceeding to include Iran as a part of his regional market agenda.

The Garbage Journalists claim that Trump has adopted a new bellicose stance toward China and threatens to launch a ‘protectionist agenda’, which will ultimately push the trans-Pacific countries closer to Beijing .  On the contrary, Trump appears intent on renegotiating and increasing trade via bilateral agreements.

Trump will most probably maintain, but not expand, Obama’s military encirclement of China ’s maritime boundaries which threaten its vital shipping routes.  Nevertheless, unlike Obama, Trump will re-negotiate economic and trade relations with Beijing – viewing China as a major economic power and not a developing nation intent on protecting its ‘infant industries’.  Trump’s realism reflect the new economic order:  China is a mature, highly competitive, world economic power, which has been out-competing the US , in part by retaining its own state subsidies and incentives from its earlier economic phase.  This has led to significant imbalances.  Trump, the realist, recognizes that China offers great opportunities for trade and investment if the US can secure reciprocal agreements, which lead to a more favorable balance of trade.

Trump does not want to launch a ‘trade war’ with China , but he needs to restore the US as a major ‘exporter’ nation in order to implement his domestic economic agenda.  The negotiations with the Chinese will be very difficult because the US importer-elite are against the Trump agenda and side with the Beijing ’s formidable export-oriented ruling class.

Moreover, because Wall Street’s banking elite is pleading with Beijing to enter China ’s financial markets, the financial sector is an unwilling and unstable ally to Trump’s pro-industrial policies.

Conclusion

Trump is not a ‘protectionist’, nor is he opposed to ‘free-trade’.  These charges by the garbage journalists are baseless.  Trump does not oppose US economic imperialist policies abroad.  However, Trump is a market realist who recognizes that military conquest is costly and, in the contemporary world context, a losing economic proposition for the US .  He recognizes that the US must turn from a predominant finance and import economy to a manufacturing and export economy.

Trump views Russia as a potential economic partner and military ally in ending the wars in Syria , Iraq , Afghanistan and Ukraine , and especially in defeating the terrorist threat of ISIS .  He sees China as a powerful economic competitor, which has been taking advantage of outmoded trade privileges and wants to re-negotiate trade pacts in line with the current balance of economic power.

Trump is a capitalist-nationalist, a market-imperialist and political realist, who is willing to trample on women’s rights, climate change legislation, indigenous treaties and immigrant rights.  His cabinet appointments and his Republican colleagues in Congress are motivated by a militarist ideology closer to the Obama-Clinton doctrine than to Trumps new ‘America First’ agenda.  He has surrounded his Cabinet with military imperialists, territorial expansionists and delusional fanatics.

Who will win out in the short or long term remains to be seen.  What is clear is that the liberals, Democratic Party hacks and advocates of Little Mussolini black shirted street thugs will be on the side of the imperialists and will find plenty of allies among and around the Trump regime.

 

%d bloggers like this: