لا تغيير في نهج ترامب أميركا أولاً… والانسحاب سيّد الموقف!

سبتمبر 14, 2019

,

محمد صادق الحسيني

إنّ أيّ تحليل عميق لنهج الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب، ومنذ أن بدأ حملته الانتخابية التي أوصلته الى البيت الابيض، لا يمكن إلا أن يؤكد عدم ميله ترامب الى إنشاء ادارة أميركية قوية، كتلك الإدارات الأميركية السابقة والمتماسكة والتي كانت تعمل كمحرك، تنسجم جميع مكوناته، في إنجاز عمل متكامل، عبر نسق من الآليات، خدمة لمصلحة الامن القومي الأميركي في العالم، بل إنّ ما يصبو اليه هو تحقيق رؤية ترامب لمصلحة الامن القومي الأميركي والمعروفة للجميع.

إنها باختصار شديد:

1. التركيز على الوضع الداخلي الأميركي، وإعادة إحياء الاقتصاد والبنى التحتية المتهالكة، في الولايات المتحدة.

2. إعادة التركيز على ضرورة العودة الى مبدأ الرأسمالية المنتجة الصناعية والحدّ من تغوُل رأسمالية المضاربات أسواق البورصات التي يسيطر عليها اليهود .

3. تخفيض الإنفاق العام للدولة وذلك لتوفير الأموال اللازمة للاستثمارات الضرورية للنهوض بالاقتصاد وخلق فرص عمل جديدة إلى جانب تحسين قدرات الولايات المتحدة التنافسية في الأسواق الدولية، لضمان فرص أفضل لمواجهة الصين على الصعيد الاقتصادي والتجاري، حالياً ومستقبلاً.

من هنا قام الرئيس ترامب بالتخلي عن كلّ من عارض توجهاته الشخصية، لتحقيق رؤية ترامب المشار اليها أعلاه، منذ وصل البيت الأبيض حتى الآن. وكان آخر من طرد من المركب هو مستشار الأمن القومي لترامب، جون بولتون، أحد أكثر المحافظين الجدد تطرفاً والصديق اللصيق لنتنياهو، وداعية الحرب ضدّ إيران وروسيا وكوريا الشمالية وفنزويلا وكلّ من يعارض توجهاته العدوانية الخطيرة، والتي يمثلها تيار بعينه في الولايات المتحدة الأميركية.

انطلاقاً من انّ إدارة ترامب ليست إدارة أميركية كلاسيكية ذات استراتيجية واضحة، وبالتالي تعتمد في تنفيذها على أدوات محدّدة، فإننا نرى انّ الرئيس ترامب قد أعطى كلّ واحد من مراكز القوى في الولايات المتحدة ما يريد تقريباً.

فهو أعطى سماسرة الحروب والدولة العميقة، بما فيها البنتاغون، دعاة الحرب بولتون وبومبيو. كما أعطى اللوبيات اليهودية، في الولايات المتحدة، كلّ ما طلبه نتنياهو، من صفقة القرن الى كلّ الأدوار التفضيلية في كلّ المجالات.

ولكنه في الوقت نفسه انتظر موسم الحصاد. فإذا به موسماً لم ينتج شيئاً، حيث إنّ جميع مشاريع الحروب، التي كان يديرها دعاة الحرب، قد فشلت تماماً. لم تسقط الدولة السورية ولم يتمّ القضاء على حزب الله والمقاومة الفلسطينية في غزة وهزم مشروع داعش، في العراق وسورية وبمساعدة إيران قبل أيّ كان. كما هزم المشروع السعودي في اليمن على الرغم من مرور خمس سنوات على أكثر حروب البشرية وحشية وإجراماً، مورست ضدّ شعب أعزل ومسالم ودون أيّ مسوغ.

اما أمّ الهزائم فهي هزيمة دعاة الحرب في المواجهة الدائرة مع إيران، سواء على الصعيد الاقتصادي او على الصعيد العسكري، بعد إسقاط طائرة التجسّس الأميركية العملاقة وعدم قيام الرئيس الأميركي بالردّ على إسقاطها، ما جعل جون بولتون يلجأ الى مؤامرة احتجاز ناقلة النفط الإيرانية، بالتعاون مع بعض غلاة الساسة في واشنطن ولندن، على أمل ان يتمكن هؤلاء من توريط الرئيس الأميركي في حرب مع إيران.

اما في ما يتعلق بشريك بولتون في التآمر والكذب، نتنياهو، فلم تكن نتائج مؤامراتة وألاعيبة ومسرحياته أفضل حظاً من ممارسات بولتون. نفذ اعتداءات جوية على سورية ولبنان والعراق وأخذ كلّ ما أراد من الرئيس الأميركي. صفقة القرن، بما فيها من نقل السفارة الأميركية الى القدس والاعتراف بالمدينة عاصمة لـ»إسرائيل» وصولاً الى الاعتراف بسيادتها على الجولان.

ولكن الرئيس الأميركي تيقن من انّ نتيجة كلّ ذلك هو صفر. حيث أَمر نتنياهو، بصفته وزيراً للحرب، جيشه بترك الحدود مع لبنان والانسحاب مسافة سبعة كيلومترات الى الخلف. أيّ انّ جيشه ليس قادراً حتى على حماية نفسه من هجمات محدودة من قوات حزب الله.

فماذا كان قرار ترامب على ضوء كل هذه الحقائق؟

أ وقف الاتصالات الهاتفية مع نتنياهو، على الرغم من مواصلة الأخير استجداء ذلك، منذ اكثر من أسبوعين.

ب إعلان الرئيس الأميركي أنه سيبدأ مفاوضات سرية، مع أنصار الله اليمنيين، في عُمان.

ج تأكيده عشرات المرات على رغبته في التفاوض مع إيران وتعيينه الجنرال مارك إِسبر وزيراً للدفاع والذي أعلن في تصريح تلفزيوني أنه لا يريد حرباً مع إيران وإنما يريد الوصول الى حلّ دبلوماسي للخلاف.

د طرده لجون بولتون من البيت الأبيض ووضعه لمايك بومبيو على لائحة الانتظار، والذي لن يطول انتظاره اكثر من ثلاثة أشهر. ربما حتى نهاية شهر تشرين الثاني المقبل 11 / 2019 .

وهذا يعني أنّ ترامب قد قرّر العودة الى التركيز على شعارات حملته الانتخابية الاولى، بدءاً بما ذكر أعلاه اقتصادياً ومالياً ووصولاً الى:

الانسحاب العسكري الشامل، من كلّ «الشرق الأوسط» وليس فقط من افغانستان وسورية، وما يعنيه ذلك من تخلٍ كامل عن «إسرائيل» في اللحظة المناسبة… من الناحية العملية، وربما من مناطق عديدة أخرى في العالم وذلك خفضاً للنفقات العسكرية الأميركية تملك واشنطن اكثر من ألف قاعدة عسكرية خارج الولايات المتحدة .

الاستعداد لتحسين العلاقات الأميركية الروسية ومحاولة منع قيام تحالف أو حلف عسكري روسي مع الصين، ربما تنضم إليه دول اخرى.

إيجاد صيغة ما للتفاوض مع إيران وتطبيع العلاقات معها، وما يعنيه ذلك من تخلّ فعلي عن أدوات واشنطن الخليجية وسقوط لهم لاحقاً، ونعني بالتحديد ابن سلمان وابن زايد.

اذ انهم، كما نتن ياهو، فشلوا في تحقيق أيّ نجاح في المهمات التي أوكلت اليهم في طول «الشرق الاوسط» وعرضه، الأمر الذي جعلهم عبئاً لا طائل من حمله.

ولكن ترامب، رجل المال والصفقات، لن يترك ابن سلمان وابن زايد ينجون بجلودهم ويذهبون في حال سبيلهم، دون أن يعصر منهم المزيد من الاموال. اذ انه، ومن خلال الخبراء الأميركيين المختصين، يعمل على الاستيلاء على عملاق النفط العالمي، شركة أرامكو للبترول، وذلك من خلال طرحها للاكتتاب الخصخصة في بورصة نيويورك ومنع طرحها في بورصة طوكيو.

كما أنّ احتياطي النفط الهائل في محافظة الجوف اليمنية، الذي يزيد على كل احتياطيات النفط السعودية، هو السبب الرئيسي وراء رغبة ترامب عقد محادثات سرية مع أنصار الله، بهدف انهاء الحرب. فهو في حقيقة الأمر يريد التفاوض مع ممثلي الشعب اليمني ليس حفاظاً على أرواح اليمنيين وإنما من اجل ضمان إعطاء حقوق استثمار حقول النفط الموجودة في محافظة الجوف لشركات أميركية واستبعاد الشركات الروسية والصينية وحتى البريطانية من هذا المجال.

بعدنا طيبين، قولوا الله…

Advertisements

The Bottom of the Barrel

May 03, 2019

The Bottom of the Barrel

by Jimmie Moglia for The Saker Blog

In patient resignation, most of us accept that the web of life is of a mingled yarn, that good and ill go together, that our virtues may shine were it not for our faults – and that our sinfulness would induce despair, were it not redeemed by our virtues or, at least, by some atoning acts of charity or goodness.

Yet there are times when the surrounding prevailing powers of evil unite to reach the bottom of a barrel of perfidy, treason, debasement and viciousness – equally filled with the nauseous and abhorrent distillate of the seven capital sins.

Listing the products of evil would imply a priority among degradations, whereas I weigh the acts equally, and equally their performers.

One such time is now, and I would challenge the historical skeptic, among my twenty-five readers, to prove that it isn’t. For he may say that WW2, or the Vietnam war, or the Iraq war etc. were worse. And that emotion drives our perceptions, that man is but a quintessence of dust, and that a personal internal revolt is sometimes essential to spiritual health, and can create a particular form of relief.

All this may be true, but irrelevant. For the history of man is but the history of time, and each age, epoch or era has distinct characteristics and sometime comparable features, such as commensurable levels of treachery, deceit and mass deception.

Commensurable and in this instance worse. For I rate as treasonous the treason of Julian Assange, the war on Venezuela and the ‘recognition’ of the ‘sovereignty’ of Israel on the Golan Heights by the Trump Cartel.

Hell is empty and all the devils seem to have gathered at the headquarters of the Cartel, along with the train of mental eunuchs, (domestic but also especially notable the English parliament,) ever ready to kiss the devil’s ass – and to gather by repugnant deceit the rewards they could never collect by honest labor.

Its indifference to openly criminal acts shows that the Cartel apparatus is corrupted beyond the common degree of wickedness. And by seemingly unquestioning condescendence, Trump must listen with pride, pleasure and shamelessness to the commands of his masters, mixed with flattering suggestions by the peacocks of the palace.

For whether we call them masters or “deep state” or use any other euphemism, the still uninformed or unaware will find, with a brief search, who owns, directs and controls the banks, the main avenues of communications and censorship, the tools of social media, the educational curricula, and that manufacturer-promoter of vice, referred to as “Hollywood” – whose machinery of persuasion is ever ready to surprise the unawareness of the thoughtless, by promoting, as patterns for imitation, the behavior and values of the dregs of humanity.

For there is a coincidence of interests between and among the deep state, economy, finance, entertainment, official and criminal enterprises, mobs, crime, gangs, cliques, politicians, marauders and plunderers in the global cupola. Where ‘cupola’, a metaphor mediated from architecture, meaning ‘dome’, perfectly conveys the sense of a comprehensive protective environment. An environment that erases the very notion of crime and makes it a property indistinguishable and consubstantial with the business of living.

Somewhere inside the cupola sits the current Trump Cartel, with its mischief and malignity, applied with the utmost acrimony even on people and states that do not hurt the US national interest. Thanks to Julian Assange, for instance, the world learned, or at least had undeniable confirmation, of the crimes committed by the recent US cartels to bring to the world ‘democracy’ and exceptionalism.

Him who commits an odious crime, and tries to hide it, we call a psychopath or a pervert. With the Cartel, claiming that perversion is in the national interest causes an epistemological problem of sufficient magnitude, as to lay upon the logical and semantic resources of the English language, a heavier burden than they can be reasonably expected to bear.

As for the Golan Heights, Trump and that minister of Hell, whose sole name blisters my tongue, and whom even the devil should be ashamed to call him a colleague – are a seeming pair of turtle-doves, that cannot live asunder day or night. So much for the so-called “America First” electoral program, which, for logical coherence and intent of adherence, Trump should have printed on toilet paper.

For in the end, the only obvious shared and choral property of the Cartel is a pathetic, disagreeable, ignorant and unjustified arrogance (assuming, but not given, that arrogance can ever be an asset rather than a liability).

The bullying state awes the timorous with violence and the credulous mistake the state’s injustice for law. As if each member of the Cartel were saying, “I am Sir Oracle, and when I open my lips, let no dog bark!” – preaching the imperious doctrine of the necessity of submission, to nations and peoples as old or older than the United States, such as Venezuela in the latest instance.

Furthermore, along with the fetor, the stink and the stench produced by the actors of the Cartel, there has been a concurrent, noticeable and remarkable increase in the power and externations of the already referred-to ‘deep-state,’ a still uncensored term, used to name what cannot be openly said.

And the sharpening of censorship is worldwide. For example, a French judge has just condemned the intellectual Alain Soral to one year in prison for having referred to the “Holocaust” without the expected, mandatory tone of religious guilt and plea for atonement.

Here, by relinquishing her foreign affairs to the Talmudists, rather than being considered an exceptional nation, the United States has turned into an abyss of profound littleness. Which is unfair, because the Zionist Cartel are not, nor they represent, the American people.

In this context, and considering Trump’s pronouncement about the Golan Heights, it is relevant to quote verbatim a public declaration by the leader of the US Senate Democrats. A declaration thunderously applauded by an ecstatic audience, and demonstrating to still potential skeptics, what America stands for, for whom certain “Americans” in the Cartel work, and to whom they pledge their allegiance.

“Schumer comes from the Hebrew word “schowmer”, which means guardian, watchman. My ancestors were guardian of the ghetto-ward of “Jordcoast” in Galicia, and when they came to Ellis Island, they said their name in Yiddish, “Schoimer” and it got written down as “Schumer”

To you I say this. That name was given to me for a reason. For as long as I live, for as long as I have the privilege of serving in the senate from New York , I will unflinchingly, unstintingly, and with all of my strength be “shoumer Israel, a guardian of Israel. Ladies and Gentlemen, I am your “throwel kai (yiddish)” in Israel and America. The Jewish nation lives, now and forever.”

Maybe it’s a coincidence, but after the recent elections, Ukraine has now a Jewish prime minister and a Jewish president. And the oligarch who made this possible, is another Ukrainian Jew (Kolomoisky), with Israeli nationality. Given that speech is one index of a person, the interested reader may get an idea of Kolomoisky’s character by reading the article https://bit.ly/2WklObG – posted in 2015.

And in the next US presidential elections Biden is now an official Democratic contender, who declares to be “proud of being a Zionist”, who wholeheartedly supported all recent wars (for Israel), and who advocates yet another war against Iran.

Furthermore, given that Bernie Sanders is also a presidential contender, Americans may have to choose between the Trump Cartel, the most Zionist among recent administrations, and a presidential ticket made up of an actual Jew with a questionable ideological background, and an extreme Zionist, barely short of conversion.

That the mythical majority of ‘people,’ in whose name the government governs, are demonstrably helpless in changing the political course of events, requires no demonstration. It is already a kind of miracle that the same majority can – at least so far – share ideas among themselves.

Clearly, the stupendous expectations of positive social changes by earlier prophets did not materialize. But no tenderness for disappointed prophecies ought to induce us to disconnect effect and causes.

On the other hand, it is possible to ascribe effects that cannot be disputed, to causes which may be arguably denied. For many are the springs whose waters feed into the river of time. Focusing on some implies disregarding others.

Therefore, unless he only gives history the cold regard of idle curiosity, I suggest to the interested but disagreeing reader to seek alternative interpretations and to remember that a point of view is unavoidably relative.

And to keep in mind that a dogmatic history is neither true nor reliable. Unfortunately, current historical thought has drifted towards dogmatism. How else can we explain that, even in European, self-described ‘democratic’ societies, rational disagreement with the oligarchically-endorsed historical line can bring the disagreer to jail, and/or subject him to harmful penalties. And this, in deference to supreme hypocrisy, to prevent ‘hate’.

Hypocrisy is often but a vice concealed, hence we can easily verify that there is no vice so simple but assumes some mark of virtue on its outward parts.

In selecting the factors that shape an age, including ours, one major influence is its inspiring ideology. In turn, an ideology involves a three-fold dispensation: intellectual, practical and moral.

The intellectual dispensation consists of retaining only facts favorable to the thesis that the ideologue(s) support – often by inventing them, by denying them, and by forgetting or omitting others to prevent them from being known.

In the instance, Assange’s videos showed conclusively the patent, inherent, criminal and undeniable evil of the political-military-ideological machine, at work during the Iraq war and beyond. And later, that the Cartel was, directly and indirectly, arming and supporting the ISIS terrorists it pretended to fight. In this context, Trump’s assertion that “we have declared victory over ISIS” rings like the comic relief inserted into the classical tragedies.

The practical dispensation eliminates the function of debate, disregarding the value of any confutation, however factual and logical. By removing argument, ideology also fabricates its own self-absolving explanations. For example, Venezuela is ‘bad’ because is ‘socialist.’ The Washington Cartel cannot possibly imagine that a nation or people may prefer a more equitable socio-political system to the degraded life of the South-American favelas and the sordid affluence of a tiny minority.

Assange endangered American security, etc. The inadmissibility of confutation prevents any related questions, such as which Americans Assange actually made insecure and why.

The moral dispensation abolishes any notion of good and evil for the ideological players; or rather, ideology becomes the substitute of morals. With Venezuela, the moral waiver enables the pretense that an etero-appointed puppet is the actual ‘president’. And it justifies the carrying out of large-scale criminal and genocidal acts, such as the terrorist cyber and electromagnetic attacks on the electrical and water system of Venezuela and the nefarious economic war on the country.

Ideology finds assistance and fertile ground in the general incuriosity for the facts – leaving free range to sundry pundits, goons and ruffians to popularize the version of the reality they are paid to peddle – or the reality that suits their soul and fills their wallet.

Considering the history of the Western world during the last few hundred years, we may observe that it takes between 30 and 50 years before the effects of a new ideology show themselves in full in the country or regions that produced it.

Examples are: the intervals between the ideology of the Enlightenment and its expression in the French Revolution, – between the European nationalist movements, arisen after the Council of Vienna in 1815, and the actual independence of the new affected countries after 1850, – between the brewing of a communist ideology in Russia in the latter 1800 and the 1917 Bolshevik revolution.

At the cost of objectionable over-simplification, here is an outline of the plot and the play on the development of our current prevailing ideology. The world being a stage, and all men and women merely actors, the play includes a prelude, a rising action, a climax and a denouement.

The prelude involves three characters, Freud, his nephew Edward Bernays, and Wilhelm Reich. Freud and Reich, hiding behind their phony pseudo-scientific lingo, were perverts, unable to deal with their own perversion. As a remedy, they tried to prove that everyone else was a pervert too, thereby making their own perversion acceptable. Hence anyone who was not a sex addict or a sodomite, or did not find incest repugnant, was ‘repressed’ and needing ‘liberation’.

Bernays and his associates capitalized on the idea that desires other than actual necessity influence consumption, that sex is an easily manipulated passion, and that attaching a product to the consumer’s sexual passion would induce him to purchase the product.

Reich was the true inspiration, along with Cultural Marxism, of the ‘sexual revolution’ of the 1960s. Students facing policemen on campus threw copies of Reich’s books at them. He was born in 1897 into a wealthy family from Galicia, then part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. He had a private tutor, as was the case with the offspring of the rich, and discovered that the tutor was having an affair with his mother.

In an early article on psychiatry, pretending to write about one of his patients, Reich described himself as torn between two choices. An impulse to use this knowledge to blackmail his mother into having intercourse with him, or to tell his father about her affair with the tutor. Eventually he chose to inform his father and as a consequence of the upheaval in the family, Reich’s mother committed suicide.

Reich then married a patient whom he had seduced, after her parents discovered the relationship. But to justify his own subsequent behavior, he discovered a yet unknown principle of human nature. Namely that sexual morality was a far-reaching historical conspiracy to cripple the psyche of otherwise healthy people.

He also discovered and profitably adopted the idea of using sex as an attention getter for crowds variously indifferent to philosophy. For Freudian-Reichian inspired psychiatry, stripped of its academic gilding and scientific mimicking, is but a narrowed-down branch or pretense of philosophy. And practically a substitute for Catholic confession – where instead of a priest absolving a sinner with a recommendation to repent, a “psychiatrist” absolves a (usually wealthy) patient from any guilt about his sexual mores or perversions, in exchange for big bucks. Freud familiarly called his wealthy patients as “my negroes.”

Reich also got involved in politics but he found that his audience at large was not (yet) ready to accept his view that the problems of the world were due to sexual inhibition. Therefore he had to choose between conforming his drives to the tenets of the current moral order, or attempting to change the world to suit his perversion. He chose to change the world, with foreseeable consequences. He ended his life in a federal prison in Lewisburg, Pennsylvania in 1957.

The rising action in the play is Cultural Marxism, which essentially rejected any kind of moral authority, to be exchanged for a complete abandonment of what were/are usually referred-to as social norms. In some ways Cultural Marxism is/was – with minor adaptation to local circumstances – the implementation of Reich’s idea of a brave new world.

The climax occurs in 1968, in the shape of what has been indifferently called the students’ revolution and/or the sexual revolution. Hence the rise of feminism, abortion on demand, the idea that gender is a “construct”, the same for race, the fierce (and successful) battle for no limits to public pornography, presented as “free speech” etc.

In time a country embodies the ideology it accepted. Our times reflect the ideology that bloomed in the 1960s and 1970s, and its manifest political archetype is/was Bill Clinton, a Wilhelm Reich’s dream come true, and the denouement of the ideological play.

It began when the biography of this future president was ignored or deemed irrelevant. The name of Jennifer Flowers has now probably sunk into the swallowing gulf of oblivion. But in those pre-election times, it came out that Flowers was Clinton’s lover and that he had paid for her abortion. Clinton strenuously denied everything, but Flowers had been sagacious enough to record the call in which Clinton proposed the abortion and made the offer. The call became public and not even Clinton could deny his own voice.

What I think ideologically relevant is not the event, but the implications. Namely, the media, and consequently the public, sanctioned that broad lying by a presidential candidate is irrelevant. Or better, that sexual “liberation” trumps elementary veracity in the highest office of the state. A fact later confirmed in the Lewinsky business, when the senate decided that Clinton’s lying to the nation under oath (“I never had sex with that woman”) was not an impeachable offense. It follows that if sexual liberation is liberation from repression, freedom to lie is liberation from the repression of telling the truth.

Hence – to name but few truths – bomb Serbia and kill thousands because suddenly Albanians had a right to Kosovo, 19 drunkards and drug addicts did 9/11, Saddam had weapons of mass distraction, Libya was a dictatorship to be destroyed, so was Syria, and Guaido’ is the legitimate president of Venezuela.

It has not yet sunk into the consciousness of the White House Cartel that, as of now, absurd lies or lying beyond the absurd can be easily unmasked through alternative non-censored media.

During the latest on-site performance by the US appointed president of Venezuela, Mike Pompeo announced that Maduro was on the point of leaving Venezuela on a plane bound for Cuba, when some unidentified Russians forced him to remain in Caracas – while the US puppet was marching in triumph towards the presidential palace.

The Russian Foreign Minister did not even waste time to respond directly but did so through the new spokeperson of the Kremlin, the attractive Maria Zacharova, who said that Pompeo’s news was the fruit of his imagination. And Maduro, calling on Pompeo via public television said, “Pompeo, come on!” – a diplomatic rendering of “You are a twit”.

John Bolton and Narco Rubio announced that masses of Venezuelan would soon install the puppet in office. The coup had succeeded. But a few hours later, when the coup was proven but a botched attempt at creating chaos and death, Bolton declared that it was not a coup but a demonstration.

In such hands rests the credibility of the American Republic, where all the women are strong, all men are good-looking, and all the children are above average.

Incidentally, the recent Mueller Report on alleged ‘Russian Collusion’ in the presidential elections of 2016, concluded that there were none. But it contains extended redacted sections, among which, some are said to be transcriptions of the phone-sex that Clinton had with Lewinsky, as recorded by the Russians. Here, unlike with Assange, we can easily envision the possibility of blackmail and the actual real implications for national security.

If this attitude is/was permissible for a head of state, why not for all others? After all, self-control, especially in matters sexual, is a “repression,” an emotional disorder (a la Freud and Reich,) from which the public – and even school children – must be “liberated,” via “sex-education” and transgressive imagery.

But if morality is a form of repression, so is reason. Therefore man is free to become irrational. Once irrational, he is only driven by his appetites, impulses and passions. But when driven by his passions he can’t control his actions –

and, in the end, as Plato predicted, this type of freedom becomes a sort of slavery.

The victim of the ideology does not realize that “sexual freedom” is a form of social control, because his reason, which previously prompted his actions, has been replaced by his passions. Consequently, pornography and the Hollywood-produced sewage, rather than expressions of sexual freedom, are actually tools of social control. For those who profit financially from promoting pornography, will contribute to elect those who will protect them politically. Hence the link between the “liberated” consumer, his financial exploiters and the political system that protects the exploiters and strengthen their exploitation.

Reich thought that sex repression led to totalitarianism – it’s actually the reverse. The sex revolution associated with the Bolshevik Revolution led to Stalin. In fact, the disruption and destruction of the family that followed the Bolshevik-inspired sex revolution created such a social chaos as to threaten the very existence of the state. Lenin himself issued commands to reverse the course and soon Russian political commissars spoke like Catholic priests. In Germany, the sex freedom and excesses of the Weimar Republic led to Hitler.

We could describe the current neo-liberal philosophy – with the accompanying explosion of inequality, the race to the bottom, the loss of political interest in evened-out economic progress and in the general welfare – a form of soft totalitarianism. Soft because iconic representative figures (like Hitler or Stalin), are no longer needed at the end of history.

Many still attribute the phenomenon to the dissolution of the Soviet Union – when grievances in the West, arising from excessive inequality, would have found support among the Soviet enemy, and now lo longer could. Maybe, but it could be argued that the ideological upheaval brought about by the “sexual revolution” – epitomized by licensing a president to lie, because it was “only” about sex – shifted the priorities. Which, broadly speaking, are now same-sex marriage, transgenderism, homosexual rights, lowering the age of consent, should pedophilia be still a crime, and debates on whether gender is but a construct, whether races are a fascist invention, and how late should abortion be allowed.

To be fair, there have been efforts at bringing attention to the growing inequality – but they have been weak and uninspiring, at least in America.

In Europe, movements in Greece and Spain have practically suffered the same fate. Or rather, their initial plan, based on passive revolution, has converted into active immobilism.

The French Gilets Jaunes, so far, have proven to be different. They discovered that in a world converted into a fiscal paradise for the rich, it is natural that the fiscal burden be borne by all others. To which is added the cost of feeding, lodging, health-care, policing and administering millions of third-world migrants, pushed into Europe and America as part of the war against Western Culture and against Christian Civilization at large. Of that war we know the generals and the strategists, though we are not supposed to.

The outcome of the Gilets Jaunes movement is unknown. The forces of reaction are waging a hybrid war against them. It consists of violence, maiming, blinding and limbs severance. It includes the injection of (presumably hired) anarchists among the demonstrators, to cause counterproductive damage to property, palpable havoc among the citizenry and natural fear among the timid.

But unlike other reformers that I know of, the Gilets Jaunes have identified a paradox of any potential large-scale reformation. Namely, that appointing and electing a leader narrows or compromises the choices and direction of reform. For this reason, as of now, they still have none.

For they may remember that the pain of the people triggered the French Revolution. And that by the time the Revolution had its most notorious leader, Robespierre, it had turned into terror. Then another leader, Napoleon, put an end to the terror, and to relieve the original pain of the people, he converted them into conscripted soldiers sending them to die throughout Europe.

How the Gilets Jaunes will resolve the paradox is unknown, but the original inspirers of the movement have at least recognized the challenge.

In a similar spirit, I conclude with an unanswered question: does an ideology develop spontaneously, or is it the product of more-or-less occult groups that have a specific self-serving objective? In my view the question suggests a detective story without a clear solution, because reality itself is also a mystery.

Why is Corbyn so Important?

March 10, 2019  /  Gilad Atzmon

pacified corbyn.jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

For the same reasons that President Trump has been a significant political development.

These two post-political characters bring to the surface what has been suppressed for decades: we are subject to foreign occupation. We the people, are reduced to mere consumers and our so-called ‘elected politicians’ are a bunch of detached, compromised actors.

Trump was elected to make ‘America great again.’ Throughout his election campaign Trump was accused by Jewish media of spreading  ‘dog whistling anti-Semitic tropes’  in order to appeal to White nationalists who indeed responded to their new master. They made Trump president only to discover that their beloved country isn’t that great and is not going to reinstate its greatness any time soon. However, Trump and his administration have been working relentlessly to make Israel great again.

https://youtu.be/YkDmKIKX_bs

Trump has succeeded in illuminating the hopeless state of the democratic adventure. Trump has exposed the vast depth of the political crisis that splits America apart; the battle between the ‘Identitarians’ and the rest. America’s battles could deteriorate into a civil war at any time. Trump is not the cause of this demographic, geographic, cultural and spiritual clash. He just galvanized the symptoms of that clash.

Similarly, Corbyn acts as a catalyst to awaken a new consciousness. Through Corbyn we learn to perceive how grim our situation is and how truly impotent the contemporary Left and the Labour party are.  Corbyn’s struggles allow us to see that the Labour party is an occupied zone. Corbyn’s helplessness has revealed that the best radical candidate the British Left has produced in decades is, tragically, very weak and can’t hold his ground on any issue from Israel/Palestine to Brexit and beyond.

Since Corbyn was chosen to lead the Labour party this old political institution has revealed its true tyrannical nature, engaged in a constant purge of the best of its members. Any criticism of Israel or its intrusive Lobby leads to immediate suspension and even expulsion. Since Corbyn was elected to save us from the Tories, the Labour party has adopted an Orwellian Big Brother attitude. The party has been spying on its members and digs into their social media accounts, even evicting members for comments they made years before they joined the party.

Indeed, Corbyn has helped us see the dark machinations at the core of his party, and  the way in which it is  puppeteered  by Tel Aviv and its local British stooges.

Most devastating is that through Corbyn it has been revealed that the Left has most likely finished its historical political role. Corbyn promised to ‘care for the many not the few,’ a pledge that initially sounded promising but has been largely contradicted by the reality on the ground. The Labour party and its leader ignore the many as they follow the orders of the very few. The British working class aren’t impressed by the closest ally they have ever had at the helm of the Labour Party.  It is through Corbyn and his to date colossal failure that we understand that a fresh form of opposition is crucial for our survival as ethical and dignified people.

My battle for truth and freedom involves  some expensive legal services. I hope that you will consider committing to a monthly donation in whatever amount you can give. Regular contributions will enable me to avoid being pushed against a wall and to stay on top of the endless harassment by Zionist operators attempting to silence me.

Denate

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine

FEDERICO PIERACCINI | 07.03.2019 | WORLD / AMERICAS

‘America First’: A Stronger Monroe Doctrine

The previous articles (firstsecond) examined what appears to be a coordinated strategy between Moscow and Beijing to contain the damage wrought by the United States around the world. This strategy’s effectiveness relies heavily on the geographical position of the two countries vis-a-vis the United States and the area of contention. We have seen how the Sino-Russian strategy has been effective in Asia and the Middle-East, greatly stemming American disorder. Moscow and Beijing have less capacity to contain the US and influence events in Europe, given that much depends on the Europeans themselves, who are officially Washington’s allies but are in reality treated as colonies. With the new “America First” doctrine, it is the central and southern parts of the American continent that are on the receiving end of the US struggling to come to terms with the diminishment of its hitherto untrammelled influence in the world.

South and Central American countries blossomed under the reign of socialist or leftist anti-imperialist governments for the first decade of this century. Such terms as “21st-century socialism” were coined, as was documented in the 2010 Oliver Stone documentary film South of the Border. The list of countries with leftist governments was impressive: Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Evo Morales (Bolivia), Lula da Silva (Brazil), Rafael Correa (Ecuador), Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Argentina), Fidel Castro (Cuba), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua) and Hugo Chávez (Venezuela).

We can establish a close correlation between Washington’s actions since 1989 and the political roller-coaster experienced in South America in the ensuing thirty years.

Washington, drunk on the experience of being the only superpower in the post-Soviet period, sought to lock in her commanding position through the establishment of full-spectrum dominance, a strategy that entails being able to deal with any event in any area of ​​the globe, treating the world as Washington’s oyster.

Washington’s endeavor to shape the world in her own image and likeness meant in practical terms the military apparatus increasing its power projection through carrier battle groups and a global missile defense, advancing towards the land and sea borders of Russia and China.

Taking advantage of the US dollar’s dominance in the economic, financial and commercial arenas, Washington cast aside the principles of the free market, leaving other countries to contend with an unfair playing field.

As later revealed by Edward Snowden, Washington exploited her technological dominance to establish a pervasive surveillance system. Guided by the principle of American exceptionalism, combined with a desire to “export democracy”, “human rights” became an enabling justification to intervene in and bomb dozens of countries over three decades, aided and abetted by a compliant and controlled media dominated by the intelligence and military apparatuses.

Central and South America enjoyed an unprecedented political space in the early 2000s as a result of Washington focusing on Russia, China, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Iraq, Yugoslavia, Somalia, Georgia and Ukraine. The Latin Americans exploited this breathing space, with a dozen countries becoming outposts of anti-imperialism within a decade, advancing a strong socialist vision in opposition to free-market fundamentalism.

Both Washington and Moscow placed central importance on South America during the Cold War, which was part of the asymmetric and hybrid war that the two superpowers undertook against each other. The determination by the United States to deny the Soviet Union a presence in the American hemisphere had the world holding its collective breath during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

As any student of international relations knows, the first objective of a regional power is to prevent the emergence of another hegemon in any other part of the world. The reason behind this is to obviate the possibility that the new power may venture into other regions occupied by other hegemonic powers, thereby upsetting the status quo. The second primary objective is to prevent access by a foreign power to its own hemisphere. Washington abides by this principle through its Monroe Doctrine, set forth by President James Monroe, with the United States duly expelling the last European powers from the Americas in the early 19th century.

In analyzing the events in South America, one cannot ignore an obvious trend by Washington. While the United States was intent on expanding its empire around the world by consolidating more than 800 military bases in dozens of countries (numbering about 70), South America was experiencing a political rebirth, positioning itself at the opposite end of the spectrum from Washington, favoring socialism over capitalism and reclaiming the ancient anti-imperialist ideals of Simon Bolivar, a South American hero of the late 18th century.

Washington remained uncaring and indifferent to the political changes of South America, focusing instead on dominating the Middle East through bombs and wars. In Asia, the Chinese economy grew at an impressive rate, becoming the factory of the world. The Russian Federation, from the election of Putin in 2000, gradually returned to being a military power that commanded respect. And with the rise of Iran, destined to be the new regional power in the Middle East thanks to the unsuccessful US intervention in Iraq in 2003, Washington began to dig her own grave without even realizing it.

Meanwhile, South America united under the idea of a common market and a socialist ideology. The Mercosur organization was founded in 1991 by Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. But it was only when Venezuela, led by Chavez, became an associate member in 2004 that the organization assumed a very specific political tone, standing almost in direct opposition to Washington’s free-market template.

Meanwhile, China and Russia continued their political, military and economic growth, focusing with particular attention on South America and the vast possibilities of economic integration from 2010. Frequent meetings were held between Russia and China and various South American leaders, culminating in the creation of the BRICS organization (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa). Brazil, first with Lula and then with Dilma Rousseff, was the unofficial spokesperson for the whole of South America, aligning the continent with the emerging Eurasian powers. It is during these years, from the birth of the BRICS organization (2008/2009), that the world began a profound transformation flowing from Washington’s progressive military decline, consumed as it was by endless wars that ended up eroding Washington’s status as a world power. These wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have deeply undermined US military prestige, opening unprecedented opportunities for alliances and future changes to the global order, especially with the rise of Iran’s influence in the region as a counterweight to US imperialism.

China, Russia and the South American continent were certainly among the first to understand the potential of this political and historical period; we can recall meetings between Putin and Chavez, or the presence of Chinese leaders at numerous events in South America. Beijing has always offered high-level economic assistance through important trade agreements, while Moscow has sold a lot of advanced military hardware to Venezuela and other South American countries.

Economic and military assistance are the real bargaining chips Moscow and Beijing offer to countries willing to transition to the multipolar revolution while having their backs covered at the same time.

The transformation of the world order from a unipolar to a multipolar system became a fact in 2014 with the return of Crimea to the Russian Federation following the NATO coup in Ukraine. The inability for the US to prevent this fundamental strategic defeat for Brussels and Washington marked the beginning of the end for the Pentagon still clinging on to a world order that disappeared in 1991.

As the multipolar mutation developed, Washington changed tactics, with Obama offering a different war strategy to the one advanced during the George W. Bush presidency. Projecting power around the globe with bombs, carrier battle groups and boots on the ground was no longer viable, with domestic populations being in no mood for any further major wars.

The use of soft power has always been part of the US toolkit for influencing events in other countries; but given the windfall of the unipolar moment, soft power was set aside in favor of hard power. However, following the failures of explicit hard power from 1990 to 2010, soft power was back in favor, and organizations like the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the International Republican Institute (IRI) set about training and financing organizations in dozens of hostile countries to subvert governments by underhanded means (colour revolutions, the Arab Spring, etc.).

Among those on the receiving end of this soft-power onslaught were the South American countries deemed hostile to Washington, already under capitalist-imperialist pressure for a number of years in the form of sanctions.

It is during this time that South America suffered a side effect of the new multipolar world order. The United States started retreating home after losing influence around the globe. This effectively meant focusing once again on its own backyard: Central and South America.

Covert efforts to subvert governments with socialist ideas in the hemisphere increased. First, Kirchner’s Argentina saw the country pass into the hands of the neoliberal Macri, a friend of Washington. Then Dilma Rousseff was expelled as President of Brazil through the unlawful maneuvers of her own parliament, following which Lula was imprisoned, allowing for Bolsonaro, a fan of Washington, to win the presidential election.

In Ecuador, Lenin Moreno, the successor of Correa, betrayed his party and his people by being a cheerleader for the Pentagon, even protesting the asylum granted to Assange in Ecuador’s embassy in London. In Venezuela following Chavez’s suspicious death, Maduro was immediately targeted by the US establishment as the most prominent representative of an anti-imperialist and anti-American Chavismo. The increase in sanctions and the seizure of assets further worsened the situation in Venezuela, leading to the disaster we are seeing today.

South America finds itself in a peculiar position as a result of the world becoming more multipolar. The rest of the world now has more room to maneuver and greater independence from Washington as a result of the military and economic umbrella offered by Moscow and Beijing respectively.

But for geographic and logistical reasons, it is more difficult for China and Russia to extend the same guarantees and protections to South America as they do in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. We can nevertheless see how Beijing offers an indispensable lifeline to Caracas and other South American countries like Nicaragua and Haiti in order to enable them to withstand Washington’s immense economic pressure.

Beijing’s strategy aims to limit the damage Washington can inflict on the South American continent through Beijing’s economic power, without forgetting the numerous Chinese interests in the region, above all the new canal between the Atlantic and the Pacific that runs through Nicaragua (it is no coincidence that the country bears the banner of anti-imperialist socialism) that will be integrated into the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Moscow’s objective is more limited but just as refined and dangerous to Washington’s hegemony. A glimpse of Moscow’s asymmetrical military power was given when two Russian strategic bombers flew to Venezuela less than four months ago, sending an unmistakable signal to Washington. Moscow has the allies and the technical and military capacity to create an air base with nuclear bombers not all that far away from the coast of Florida.

Moscow and Beijing do not intend to allow Washington to mount an eventual armed intervention in Venezuela, which would open the gates of hell for the continent. Moscow and Beijing have few interlocutors left on the continent because of the political positions of several countries like Argentina, Brazil and Colombia, which far prefer an alliance with Washington over one with Moscow or Beijing. We can here see the tendency of the Trump administration to successfully combine its “America First” policy with the economic and military enforcement of the Monroe Doctrine, simultaneously pleasing his base and the hawks in his administration.

Leaving aside a possible strategy (Trump tends to improvise), it seems that Trump’s domestic political battle against the Democrats, declared lovers of socialism (naturally not as strident as the original Soviet or Chavist kind), has combined with a foreign-policy battle against South American countries that have embraced socialism.

The contribution from China and Russia to the survival of the South American continent is limited in comparison to what they have been able to do in countries like Syria, not to mention the deterrence created by Russia in Ukraine in defending the Donbass or with China vis-a-vis North Korea.

The multipolar revolution that is changing the world in which we live in will determine the rest of the century. One of the final battles is being played out in South America, in Venezuela, and its people and the Chavist revolution are at the center of the geopolitical chessboard, as is Syria in the Middle East, Donbass in Central Europe, Iran in the Persian Gulf, and the DPRK in Asia. These countries are at the center of the shift from a unipolar to a multipolar world order, and the success of this shift will be seen if these countries are able to resist US imperialism as a result of Moscow and Beijing respectively offering military help and deterrence and economic survival and alternatives.

Russia and China have all the necessary means to place limits on the United States, protecting the world from a possible thermonuclear war and progressively offering an economic, social and diplomatic umbrella to those countries that want to move away from Washington and enjoy the benefits of living in a multipolar reality, advancing their interests based on their needs and desires and favoring sovereignty and national interest over bending over to please Washington.

انقلاب واشنطن في كراكاس وسبل المواجهة البوليفارية…!

يناير 30, 2019

محمد صادق الحسيني

إنّ مخططات الولايات المتحدة العدوانية، وتصعيد التآمر المفتوح والمفضوح والمناقض لكافة القوانين والأعراف الدولية، تجاه فنزويلا ورئيسها ونظامها السياسي، ليس بجديد على السياسة الخارجية الأميركية ولا هو من اختراع الرئيس الأميركي الحالي، دونالد ترامب. إذ إنّ المؤامرات، التي تقوم بتنفيذها ادارة ترامب الحاليّة، تعود في الحقيقة الى بدايات القرن التاسع عشر وتعتبر امتداداً «لعقيدة مونروي» Monroe Doctrine ، التي أطلقها الرئيس الأميركي آنذاك، جيمس مونروي James Monroe وذلك عبر خطاب ألقاه امام الكونغرس الأميركي، بتاريخ 2/12/1923، والذي حدّد فيه الخطوط العريضة للسياسة الخارجية الأميركية، والتي تتمحور حول النقاط التالية:

1 – وجود منطقتي نفوذ في العالم Two Spheres . وتمثلت عندئذ في منطقة النفوذ الأميركية ومنطقة النفوذ الأوروبية.

2 – عدم تدخل الولايات المتحدة في الشؤون الداخلية الأوروبية، وسمّي هذا المبدأ بالانجليزية: Non –

Intervention، إلا في حال تجاهلت الدول الأوروبية هذه المبادئ.

3 – إنهاء أطماع الاستعمار، في منطقة النفوذ الغربية /أيّ الأميركيين / بمعنى وقف محاولات إعادة السيطرة على الدول التي نالت استقلالها حديثاً في تلك الحقبة. وقد سمّي هذا المبدأ

بالانجليزية: Non – Colonization.

4 – وعلى قاعدة ما ذكر أعلاه قام الرئيس الأميركي، في خطابه المذكور، بإطلاق شعار أميركا للأميركيين… وهو ليس بعيداً، في جوهره، عن شعار دونالد ترامب القائل: أميركا أولاً.

أما في ظلّ الصراع الدولي القائم حالياً على مناطق النفوذ، الذي تغذيه عدوانية الولايات المتحدة بأشكال وأساليب مختلفة، فإنّ صراع الولايات المتحدة الأميركية لم يعد مقتصراً على القوى الاستعمارية الاوروبية، للسيطرة على أميركا الجنوبية، كما كان الوضع في بداية القرن التاسع عشر، وإنما انتقل هذا الصراع الى دائرة أوسع وصلت الى روسيا والصين وإيران، نتيجة للتحوّلات الجيوسياسية التي شهدها العالم.

وعليه فقد عمدت الإدارة الأميركية الى توظيف وسائل وأساليب جديدة، بهدف مواصلة سيطرتها على مقدرات شعوب أميركا الجنوبية، والتي تعتمد على القوة العسكرية والنشاط المخابراتي التخريبي، الذي يهدف الى تحقيق سيطرة الولايات المتحدة المطلقة على كلّ قارة أميركا الجنوبية. وهو ما يعني محاربة أيّ حكومة او قوة سياسية، في تلك القارة تحاول أن تعارض سياسات الولايات المتحدة او حتى المطالبة بهامش أوسع من الاستقلالية، كما كان الوضع في البرازيل والأرجنتين وتشيلي في العقدين الماضيين، وصولاً الى صعود حركة اليسار البوليفارية في فنزويلا الى السلطة قبل حوالي عقدين من الزمن، وعبر انتخابات حرة ونزيهة. الأمر الذي دفع بالولايات المتحدة للعودة الى أساليب تغيير الحكومات الوطنية بالقوة، كما فعلت عام 1973 عندما دعمت مجموعة انقلابية تشيلية في تنفيذ انقلاب عسكري في تشيلي، أدّى الى قتل الرئيس الشرعي للبلاد، سلفادور الليِنْدي، واستيلاء عملاء الولايات المتحدة من الجنرالات على الحكم وإقامة نظام حكم عسكري قتل عشرات آلاف الأبرياء من الشعب التشيلي.

اذن، فقد عمدت الولايات المتحدة الى إعادة تفعيل سياسة إسقاط الحكومات والدول الوطنية في تلك القارة، وذلك من خلال:

أ – إقامة 76 قاعدة عسكرية في دول عدة من دول أميركا الجنوبية والبحر الكاريبي، التي من بينها: بنما/ بورتو ريكو /كولومبيا /البيرو .

ب – إقامة قواعد تجسّس وحرب إلكترونية/ إعلامية/ حرب نفسية في أميركا الجنوبية، للتأثير في الرأي العام هناك وتأليبه على الحكومات الوطنية.

ج- ومن أجل ذلك أقامت الولايات المتحدة قبل فترة وجيزة، بالتعاون مع الأرجنتين وعلى أراضٍ أرجنتينية، قاعدة تجسّس رئيسية أو إقليمية، أطلقوا عليها اسم مركز الأمن الإقليمي، وذلك عند المثلث الحدودي بين الأرجنتين والبرازيل والبراغواي.

د- توقيع اتفاقية تعاون عسكري بين البنتاغون ووزارة الدفاع البرازيلية، في شهر 11/2017، تقوم جيوش الدولتين بموجبها بتنفيذ تدريبات عسكرية مشتركة في غابات الأمازون.

إذن فهو نشاط عسكري أمني دعائي تخريبي واسع النطاق، يشمل المساحة الممتدّة من حدود المكسيك مع الولايات المتحدة شمالاً، وحتى القطب المتجمّد الجنوبي، في أقصى جنوب قارة أميركا الجنوبية. وهذا الأمر يستدعي إدارة العمليات في هذا المسرح الشامل بشكل منهجي ومخطط ومدروس ومن قبل جهات مختصة عالية الكفاءة، خاصة أنّ معركة السيطرة على هذه القارة ليست مقتصرة على المواجهة مع فنزويلا وكوبا، كما ذكرنا سالفاً.

ومن أجل تحقيق ذلك قامت الولايات المتحدة بما يلي:

أولاً: توسيع صلاحيات القيادة الجنوبية South COM في الجيوش الأميركية، بحيث تشمل تنسيق وإدارة كافة عمليات الجيوش الأميركية في أميركا الجنوبية.

ثانياً: توثيق العلاقة والتعاون بين هذه القيادة وبين وكالة الاستخبارات الجوفضائية الأميركية National Geospatial-intelligegence Agency . علماً أن هذه الوكالة هي أهمّ وكالة تجسّس عسكرية أميركية يشمل عملها الجانبين العسكري والتجاري بالإضافة الى الاستطلاع الميداني وإعداد الخرائط.

ثالثاً: إقامة ثلاثة غرف عمليات، للإشراف على إدارة الميدان في أميركا الجنوبية، حيث توجد الغرفة الأولى في ولاية فلوريدا الأميركية والثانية في سوتو كانو Soto Cano في هندوراس. أما الثالثة فتوجد في القاعدة الأميركية، المقامة على اراضٍ كوبية محتلة، في غوانتانامو Guant namo.

ولعلّ من الجدير بالذكر التنويه الى انّ قائد القيادة الجنوبية في الجيوش الأميركية، الأدميرال كورت تيد Kurt Tidd، قد لخّص التحديات والأهداف الأميركية وخططه الاستراتيجية، في أميركا الجنوبية لفترة السنوات العشر المقبلة، وخلال حديث له أمام الكونغرس الأميركي في شهر شباط 2018، بالنقاط التالية:

أ أنه وبالنظر الى القرب الجغرافي، بين الولايات المتحدة وأميركا الجنوبية، وبسبب العلاقات التجارية والمواضيع المتعلقة بالهجرة، فإنّ تأثير هذه القارة في الحياة اليومية للولايات المتحدة اكبر من تأثير أيّ منطقة أخرى في العالم.

ب أما التحدي الأهمّ، حسب ترتيب الأولويات من قبله، فيتمثل في محاربة الاتجار بالمخدرات وأعمال العصابات الإجرامية، المحلية – في دول أميركا الجنوبية – او تلك العابرة للحدود.

ج محاربة الوجود أو النفوذ المتزايد لكلّ من الصين وروسيا وإيران في أميركا الجنوبية.

من هنا فإنّ مواجهة الحملة التي بدأتها واشنطن، ضدّ الدولة الوطنية في فنزويلا ورئيسها البوليفاري، لن تكون سهلة ولا جولة صراع قصيرة وسريعة، وإنما ستكون مواجهة طويلة ومتجذرة وشاملة، تستخدم فيها الولايات المتحدة كافة الأسلحة والأدوات التي في حوزتها وهي كثيرة. مما يعني انّ الولايات المتحدة لن تعمد الى تنفيذ محاولة غزو فاشلة، كتلك التي نفّذتها في خليج الخنازير في كوبا بتاريخ 17/4/1962، وانما ستقوم بمواصلة الضغط الاقتصادي والمالي والحصار الخانق، الى جانب تنفيذ عمليات تخريبية واسعة ضدّ أهداف اقتصادية /نفطية / وكذلك ضدّ مراكز عسكرية وأمنية، معتمدة في ذلك على الإمكانيات اللوجستية لقواعدها العسكرية، الموجودة في كل من كولومبيا والبيرو المجاورتين لفنزويلا، وذلك لإشاعة الفوضى الشاملة في البلاد، تمهيداً لاستيلاء عملاء الولايات المتحدة في المعارضة الفنزويلية – المنقسمة على نفسها – على الحكم وإعادة سيطرة شركات النفط والتعدين الأميركية على ثروات فنزويلا وتكريس كون أميركا الجنوبية حديقة للولايات المتحدة الأميركية، وبالتالي التسبّب في عرقلة التعاون البنّاء والمثمر بين الثلاثي الصيني الروسي الإيراني ودول تلك القارة في الحدّ الأدنى.

وهذا أمر يستدعي:

تعميق وتوثيق التعاون بين الدول الثلاث، لإيجاد استراتيجية مشتركة لمواجهة المشروع الأميركي القاضي بإسقاط قارة أميركا الجنوبية، وبشكل سريع جداً، ينطلق من ضرورة تعزيز الصمود الاقتصادي لحكومة فنزويلا الوطنية.

– الأخذ بعين الاعتبار أنّ الدور الأوروبي، في هذه الازمة، هو دور الذيل التابع والذي ظهر واضحاً في المواقف التي اتخذتها الدول الأوروبية من الانقلاب واعتراف معظمها بمنفذ الانقلاب الأميركي الفاشل. هذا الموقف الذي يتساوق تماماً مع عقيدة الرئيس الأميركي السابق، جيمس مونرو 1923، الذي أعلن فيه أنّ الغرب أميركا الشمالية والجنوبية هو منطقة نفوذ للولايات المتحدة .

– تعزيز دعم التنظيمات والمجموعات والأحزاب اليسارية والتقدمية في عموم القارة، حتى لو كانت تبدو غير فاعلة حالياً، وذلك لأنّ ما يجري هناك هو حلقة من حلقات الصراع الجيوسياسي الدولي التي يجب أن تعطى حقها، والتي انْ تمكنت الولايات المتحدة بنتيجتها من تثبيت سيطرتها على أميركا الجنوبية، فإنّ ذلك سيعني توسيع السيطرة البحرية الأميركية في المحيطين الأطلسي والهادئ الأمر الذي سيلحق ضرراً استراتيجياً كبيراً بالنشاط البحري الصيني والروسي كما الإيراني أيضاً.

– لذا فإنّ المطلوب الآن، الى جانب الدعم الاقتصادي الواسع لحكومة الرئيس مادورو، هو البدء بالحشد السياسي الاستراتيجي، في قارة أميركا الجنوبية، تمهيداً لاستعادة المراكز القيادية، التي سقطت في أيدي الولايات المتحدة، في عدد من دول القارة، وهو أمر ليس مستحيلاً وإنما يحتاج الى قراءة دقيقة، للظروف الموضوعية في تلك الدول، والاستفادة من الإمكانيات المتوفرة، لدى الثلاثي الصيني الروسي الإيراني، واستثمارها سياسياً على المدى البعيد، وبأقصى درجات الكفاءة لضمان تحقيق النجاح على المدى المتوسط والبعيد.

بعدنا طيبين، قولوا الله.

Related Videos

Related Articles

 

Syria Security Chief Visit to Cairo اللواء علي المملوك في القاهرة

Syria Security Chief Makes Rare Visit to Egypt

December 23, 2018

Syrian Security Chief Ali Mamluk

 

Syrian security services chief Ali Mamlouk held talks with Egyptian officials in Cairo over the weekend on a rare visit to the country, Syrian state media said Sunday.

His Saturday visit came “at the invitation of” Egyptian intelligence chief Abbas Kamel, the official SANA news agency said.

It came just one week after a surprise visit to Damascus by Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who became the first Arab leader to visit the Syrian capital since the conflict began in March 2011.

Mamlouk and his Egyptian counterpart discussed topics of common concern including “political, security and counterterrorism issues”, SANA said.

It was the second official visit by the secretive Syrian security official to the Egyptian capital since the outbreak of Syria’s seven-year-old war.

SourceAgencies

 

اللواء علي المملوك في القاهرة

ديسمبر 24, 2018

ناصر قنديل

– ليست المرة الأولى التي يلتقي فيها رئيس مجلس الأمن الوطني في سورية اللواء علي المملوك قيادة المخابرات المصرية، ولا هي المرة الأولى التي يزور فيها بلداً عربياً، لكن السياق السياسي للزيارة الحالية للواء المملوك إلى القاهرة تجعلها في مكانة خاصة. فهي ليست زيارة تنسيق أمني يجري أصلاً على قدم وساق عبر اللجان المشتركة بين أجهزة الأمن في سورية ومصر منذ زمن، ولا هي لتبادل الآراء حول المتغيّرات، وهو أمر متاح في زيارة سرية أو في زيارة موفدين يتبادلهم المصريون والسوريون على الدوام، بل هي كل هذا طبعاً لكنها هي شيء آخر، والإعلان عنها بذاته هدف.

– في اللحظة التي تعلن فيها واشنطن قرار الخروج العسكري من سورية، وتفتح باب التنسيق العسكري والأمني مع تركيا، تعلن سورية ومصر تلاقيهما للتنسيق كثنائي عربي محوري في رسم مفهوم للأمن القومي العربي، وفي اللحظة التي تتسابق فيها الوفود العربية إلى سورية لوصل ما انقطع وترميم ما تبقى من بيت عربي متصدّع، تعلن سورية ومصر عن أن الأمور تكون بخير بقدر ما تكون سورية ومصر معاً، ولا تكون بخير ما لم تكن مصر وسورية معاً.

– سورية من زاوية مصلحية تستطيع تدبّر أمورها وترصيد المزيد من انتصاراتها الخاصة، وتترك لمصر تقدير اللحظة المناسبة لملاقاتها أو للمشاركة في الجهد العربي الهادف لإعادة ترميم العلاقة الرسمية العربية بسورية، وبالمعنى الضيق ربما يكون الدور التركي غير مزعج لسورية في اللحظة الراهنة. وهو الواقع تحت القلق الكردي من جهة، والقلق من تبعات الانسحاب الأميركي من جهة ثانية، والمقيد بالتفاهمات مع موسكو وطهران من جهة ثالثة، لكن سورية المسكونة بالهم العربي تجير اللحظة التاريخية لمصر علها تلتقطها، وتقول ها هي انتصارات سورية على الطاولة، وها هو الوضع العربي الممزّق، وها هي التراجعات في وضع الخليج الذي كان يضغط لتحجيم مصر والإمساك بالدفة، وها هم العرب يتسابقون إلى سورية، وها هي سورية تختار مصر، ولعل هذا هو مضمون الرسالة التي تقولها الزيارة.

– مصر القادرة على لعب دور قيادي مطالبة بتوفير مقوّمات هذا الدور، فلا تترك تركيا وحدها تطرح الهواجس مع الأميركيين وتتصدّر المشهد الإعلامي المعني بما بعد الانسحاب الأميركي بين حلفاء واشنطن الذين يفترض أن مصر تتمسك بأن تكون بينهم، ولا تنتظر إشارة سعودية لتبادر. فالمبادرة المصرية يجب أن تكون قيادية تسهم في حل مأزق الانعزال والضعف السعوديين لكن على الطريقة المصرية، وليست بالانضواء المصري تحت جناح خطة سعودية، ولا تقيم حسابات من نوع ماذا عن العلاقة السورية الإيرانية كما فعلت السعودية ذات يوم انفتاح سوري، وكان الجواب عندما تعرّضت سورية للخطر وجدت تآمراً عربياً من جهة وتخلياً عربياً من جهة موازية، ولكنها بالمقابل لم تلق إلا احتضاناً إيرانياً، وعندما تكون البوصلة فلسطين ويبيع بعض العرب القدس لكسب ودّ أميركا وتقف إيران بثبات تكون إيران حليفاً وصديقاً، فهل القاهرة جاهزة لنداء التاريخ لدور يستنهض الحضور العربي الغائب في ملفات المنطقة، وشرطه نهوض ثنائية مصرية سورية تتسع للآخرين وتلحظ أدوارهم ولا تستثنيهم، لكنها تقوم في الأصل على إدراك أن تلاقي سورية ومصر وحده ينتج مشهداً عربياً جديداً، وفي الفراغ الدولي والإقليمي تتسع الساحة لهذا الدور، ولا ينقصه إلا الإقدام!

Related Videos

Related Articles

‘New World Order’ Wine Pompoured into a Pro-‘Sovereignty’ Rhetorical Bottle

‘New World Order’ Wine Pompoured into a Pro-‘Sovereignty’ Rhetorical Bottle

JAMES GEORGE JATRAS | 15.12.2018

‘New World Order’ Wine Pompoured into a Pro-‘Sovereignty’ Rhetorical Bottle

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo began his December 4 speech in Brussels at the German Marshall Fund with “a well-deserved tribute to America’s 41st president, George Herbert Walker Bush,” whom he praised as “an unyielding champion of freedom around the world.” It was fitting that he did so. The heart and soul of Pompeo’s remarks extolling the return of “the United States to its traditional, central leadership role in the world” were little more than a rehash of Bush the Elder’s aggressive internationalism.

Pompeo (or his speechwriter) should be given credit for a masterpiece of misdirection. While the substance of his speech was a blast of stale air from the 1990s, the rhetoric was all Trumpism and national sovereignty – but only for countries obedient to Washington: “Our mission is to reassert our sovereignty, reform the liberal international order, and we want our friends to help us and to exert their sovereignty as well.”

What about the sovereignty of countries the US doesn’t count as “friends”? Well, that’s a different story: “Every nation – every nation – must honestly acknowledge its responsibilities to its citizens and ask if the current international order serves the good of its people as well as it could. And if not, we must ask how we can right it.” [emphasis added]

So according to Pompeo, the United States and our vassals (“we”) have an obligation (“must”) to fix international actors that in our infinite wisdom are not serving “the good of their people.” For example, “Russia hasn’t embraced Western values of freedom and international cooperation.” (Why should Russia care what “we” think of its values – and why should its values be “western,” anyway? Never mind! We “must” do something about it!)

This assertion constitutes not only a right but a duty of the US to dictate not only the external policies of every country on the planet but even their internal order as well if judged by all-knowing Washington to be insufficiently serving the good of their people. This means that some countries (the US and our “friends”) are sovereign, but countries we deem to be failing their people are not. Even Leon Trotsky would shrink from making such a declaration.

This alone gives the lie to the claims of the Swamp-critters Trump has put in charge of his administration that the US is “only” trying to impact behavior. (As in Pompeo’s “We welcomed China into the liberal order, but never policed its behavior.” So now we’re the police too.)

Would the Russians meet Pompeo’s standard if, say, they returned Crimea to Ukraine (presumably over the strong objections of the large majority of its residents who voted to join Russia)? Of course not. Russia would still be our No. 1 enemy.

What if the Russians “admitted” to Pompeo’s self-certifying accusations of violations of the INF Treaty and Chemical Weapons Convention, and then took the actions the US demands? Not good enough.

Maybe a gay parade through Red Square to show love of “Western values”? Getting warmer, but still no …

Admittedly, this arrogant attitude of being both the big player on the geopolitical field as well as the globocop referee (and enforcer) didn’t originate with Pompeo. Let’s recall how George H. W. Bush described America’s mission in his 1991 State of the Union:

‘What is at stake is more than one small country [.i.e., Kuwait], it is a big idea – a new world order, where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law. Such is a world worthy of our struggle, and worthy of our children’s future. … The world can therefore seize this opportunity to fulfill the long-held promise of a new world order – where brutality will go unrewarded, and aggression will meet collective resistance. Yes, the United States bears a major share of leadership in this effort. Among the nations of the world, only the United States of America has had both the moral standing, and the means to back it up. We are the only nation on this earth that could assemble the forces of peace.’

Notably missing is any concern about the United States itself, the security of our own borders and territory, and the welfare and prosperity of the American people. Instead American “leadership” is needed to usher in a globalist utopia defined by Goodthink “universal aspirations of mankind: peace and security, freedom, and the rule of law.”

One would think that at this point in the 21st century people would be wary of regurgitated Leninist claptrap, especially since it has dominated US policy for almost three decades. It’s all here:

  • Democratic centralism (which is NATO’s operating principle: there’s democratic debate until the US decides, after which there’s centralism; US “allies” in NATO have less independence than members of the Warsaw Pact did).
  • The bipartisan establishment would never admit that killing millions of people is a valid way to bring about utopia, but they have been willing to do just that in wars of choice in the Greater Middle East (including the Balkans and Afghanistan) and willing to risk far, far more deaths by pushing Russia (and China) to the brink. This is facilitated by sophisticated information control with features such as “atrocity porn” that acts as a transmission belt.

Not only is all of this Bolshevik to the core, much of it is specifically Trotskyite. That’s literally true at least for the influence of the neoconservative movement as it developed originally out of the exodus of Max Schachtman and his followers, who were expelled from the official US communist party in 1928, and then went through several party name changes, finally ending up as Social Democrats USA. As Justin Raimondo of Antiwar.com summarizes it:

‘ …[T]here is plenty to see, first and foremost the Trotskyist DNA embedded in the neocon foreign policy prescription… The Trotskyists argued that the Communist Revolution of 1917 could not and should not be contained within the borders of the Soviet Union. Today’s neocons make the same argument about the need to spread the American system until the U.S. becomes a “global hegemon,” as Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol puts it. Trotsky argued that socialism in one country was impossible, and doomed to failure: encircled by capitalism, surrounded by enemies constantly plotting its downfall, the “workers state” would not survive if it didn’t expand. The neocons are making a similar argument when it comes to liberal democracy. Confronted by an Islamic world wholly opposed to modernity, Western liberal democracy must implant itself in the Middle East by force – or else face defeat in the “war on terrorism.” Expand or die is the operative principle, and the neocons brought this Trotskyist mindset with them from the left.’

Very few Americans who don’t themselves come from far-left and émigré fever swamps have much of an idea of any this to this very day. Starting in earnest in the 1980s under Reagan, large numbers of neocons, who had previously styled themselves Henry “Scoop” Jackson Democrats, began to enter the governing apparatus on the strength of their intellectual and academic credentials and their strong anti-Sovietism. Regarding the neocons’s hostility to the USSR, originally an expression of their anti-Stalinism, “regular” Americans conservatives, whose own moral views were closer to ordinary Americans’, mistook it for simple anti-communism. Little did most of them suspect that the neocons were even more devoted to world revolution than was Brezhnev’s Politburo, and that to them the US was little more than a base of operations, just as the Bolsheviks had earlier viewed Russia.

The neocons’ influence leveled out but did not disappear under the presidency of George H.W. Bush (1989-1993), to whose credit also has some balance from relative “realists” like Henry Kissinger, Brent Scowcroft, and James Baker. However, neocons were able to make major gains under Bill Clinton (1993-2001) in alliance with so-called “liberal internationalists” like Madeleine Albright, Strobe Talbott, Richard Holbrooke – and of course Hillary Clinton. While reflecting somewhat different priorities (notably on the mix between America as the engine of world revolution vs. the role of the United Nations), the neocons and liberal internationalists found common ground in so-called “humanitarian interventionism,” notably in the Balkans. The neocons’ only criticism of Clinton’s in Bosnia and Kosovo (and later of Obama’s in Libya and Syria) was not being militant enough; accordingly the neocons (mostly outside of the Executive Branch in those years but well-represented on Capitol Hill and in think tanks) helped the liberal internationalists beat back partisan Republican and residual realist skepticism for Clinton’s wars.

When the GOP again controlled the White House under George W. Bush (2001-2009), the liberal internationalists returned the favor by whipping up Democratic support for the invasion of Iraq. By that time the neocons were in virtually total control of the Republican’s foreign policy in powerful alliance with representatives of the Deep State complex centered on the Pentagon and military industries. This latter group, known as the “Vulcans,” included people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Armitage, and Condoleezza Rice. Then, when the Democrats took over again under Barack Hussein Obama (2009-2017), the liberal internationalists’ militancy was championed by a “triumfeminate” of Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Power (known as the “genocide chick”), under whom “responsibility to protect” (R2P) became a dominant principle of US policy, again with vocal neocon support.

With Donald Trump’s election, it was hoped by many of his supporters that his “America First” views and stated desire to get along with Russia and to get the US out of places like Afghanistan and Syria, as well as his criticism of NATO, signaled a sharp departure from the influence of the neocons and their liberal interventionist and Vulcan allies. Alas, that was not to be. As Pompeo’s Max-Schachtman-masquerading-as-Pat-Buchanan speech shows, the neocon/Deep State lock remains on a policy that hurtles heedlessly forward towards disaster.

%d bloggers like this: