Is a Revolutionary Movement Developing in Europe? Rejecting the Lockdown and the Mask

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts and Klaus Madersba

Global Research, February 16, 2021

All Global Research articles can be read in 27 languages by activating the “Translate Website” drop down menu on the top banner of our home page (Desktop version).

***

US media provides little news of Europe.  What is provided is strictly “narrated.”  Consequently, Americans are unaware of what seems to be a spontaneous, leaderless, popular uprising against mandated lockdowns and masks.

There are large demonstrations in Germany, and they have spread to Vienna and to Copenhagen.  The people have more sense than the public authorities and reject the Covid mandates. 

In The Netherlands, the Hague Court has ruled that the Covid curfew has no legal basis and “is a far-reaching violation of the right to freedom of movement and privacy and limits, among other things, the right to freedom of assembly and demonstration.” See this.  

Klaus Madersbacher, proprietor of the antikrieg.com website, thinks that Germans are associating the fear-based campaign that is asserting new government controls over people’s lives and activities with an American hegemonic agenda. He believes that it is a revolutionary mass movement that should now become organized under leadership in order to achieve the independence of countries and their peoples.  

One wonders if insouciant Americans are capable of a revolutionary temperament or whether the only protests Americans will witness are the Establishment-funded Antifa and BLM riots that loot and burn private businesses.

Here is Madersbacher’s analysis of what he is witnessing.

*

A New Revolutionary mass movement 

by Klaus Madersbacher

QUERDENKEN is a revolutionary mass movement directed against the US-controlled German regime, similar in essence to the revolution of the Iranian people in 1978 against the US-run dictatorship of the Shah in Iran. It should be emphasized that the Iranian revolution was a peaceful revolution in the course of which the Iranian security forces refused to fight against their own people. The same type of revolutionary movement seems to be emerging in countries under the dominance of the United States of America.

Instead of serving their own people, European regimes serve the interests of Washington, which seems driven to obtain supremacy over the world for material reasons and also as a way out of the economic crisis in which it finds itself.

The theater with and around the coronavirus is staged with the explicit intention of distraction and of creating fear and a climate of general insecurity that leads to control measures that enable hegemonic power, perhaps resulting in a “global reset” that serves the interest of the few at the expense of the many. 

It is against these measures that the Germans and neighboring nations are rising up in an unprecedented and unforeseen readiness to defend themselves as a people and a society.

I read the protests of the last several months as clear expressions that the German people are no longer willing to submit to puppet governments that fail to represent the interests of the people.

Germans and Europeans are used as support for Washington/NATO’s push against Russia and Asia, which is clearly against European interests. If spontaneous cooperation is achieved among European peoples, Washington’s aspirations are defeated, and representative governments will form in place of Washington’s puppet states.  

Since the ruling European governments are neither willing nor able to represent the interests of their peoples, they have lost the confidence of the people and forfeited the right to remain in power. Constitutionally prescribed steps can be followed as far as possible to remove them from office.

First steps /measures

As a first step, a revolutionary council should be elected consisting of two or three members per federal state. 

The revolutionary council will accept no guidance from the EU, Washington, or any agreements that limit the exercise of national sovereignty. 

Existing governmental and financial institutions will continue in operation, but the revolutionary council will reestablish all civil liberties, such as freedom of movement, freedom of income, freedom of expression, freedom of assembly and freedom of travel. The institutional structure of government will then be thoughtfully reconstructed to be consistent with human rights and national wellbeing. 

The Covid control measures will be revoked.

The campaign of fear will be halted, and open public discussion by independent medical and scientific experts will be used to determine reasonable measures to protect the population from Covid.

Layoffs, terminations & repossessions resulting from Covid ordinances will be reversed.

Fines and penalties collected under Covid ordinances will be repaid, and court judgments against citizens under Covid ordinances will be reversed.

The Iranian Revolution against the Shah shows that revolutionary mass movements can be peaceful. To reconstruct the state to serve the people, a constitutional requirement is required that permits the passage of no law that cannot be proved in open discussion to serve the people over organized interests.  To protect the people’s interest, schooling will be used to support the ethos that honor, not material interests or service to ambition, is the basis for government service.

These idealistic aims will never be fully achieved, but their conscious cultivation can preserve the freedom of European peoples.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog site, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Zionists’ Efforts to Coopt the BLM Movement: Can Racists Be Anti-Racist?

February 14, 2021

Palestinian artists painting George Floyed on the walls on UNRWA office, in Gaza. (Photo: via UNRWA Website)

By Benay Blend

On February 6, 2021, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza announced that she was pulling out of a World Values Network online gala with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a prominent American Zionist.

“They approached me about having a conversation about the importance of solidarity between black communities and Jewish communities,” she explained, then thanked Palestinian American activist Linda Sarsour for amplifying the larger picture.

According to journalist Michael Brown, Garza has a history of denouncing other public figures who joined propaganda trips to Israel. Boteach’s gala, Brown continued, appears just as egregious, for it “follow[s] Boteach’s years of backing the racist Donald Trump, thereby making a mockery of the efforts promoted by Black leaders and the wider Black community to advance racial justice and decolonization.”

Placed within a larger context, Boteach’s move comes at a time when Zionists are increasingly fearful of the Boycott, Divestment Sanctions Movement (BDS)’s success. Coupled with the International Criminal Court (ICC)’s decision to investigate Israel for War Crimes, any support for Palestinian rights will undoubtedly come under attack.

There is a long history of Pan-African support for Palestine which has resulted in Zionists denouncing that alignment. In a lecture series “Palestine and Us: Black and Palestinian Solidarity,” Ahmad Abuznaid traced the history of Black support for Palestine as well as the fall-out from it. Referring to Malcolm X’s Zionist Logic (1964), Abuznaid explained that this statement drew from Malcolm X’s shift from Black Nationalist to a more Pan-Africanist position, particularly after he saw connections between Pan-Arabists, represented by Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, and Pan-Africanists that he was beginning to support.

After the 1967 war, Black Radicals began to move away from seeing Zionism as a liberation movement to viewing it as a colonialist venture, much like the colonialism that was oppressing Africans around the world. Following in this direction, Ethel Minor, a leader in the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), wrote a piece in their newsletter entitled “Third World Round-up: The Palestine Problem: Test Your Knowledge,” leading to a split between those, like Kwame Ture (Stokely Carmichael) who would continue to support Palestine on principle, and others who feared that without taking a more “balanced position,” one that included mention of the Holocaust, there would be loss of funding.

Indeed, as Ture made clear“immediately after the statement, phone calls rang in and the checks stopped coming.” Today, organizations, politicians and others who depend on funding are leery of taking a principled stance on Palestine, because, much like what happened with SNCC, Zionist supporters will use whatever means necessary to launch a targeted smear campaign of anyone who is critical of the Israeli state.

For example, in the aftermath of the Black Lives Matter movement’s 2014 platform that denounced the US government’s military aid to Israel, there were claims of “one-sided” and “unfair” from pro-Israel commentators who rejected the coalition’s critique. Several years before B’tselem’s quite similar statement, which was either ignored completely or applauded for its courage, BLM charged the following:

“The US justifies and advances the global war on terror via its alliance with Israel and is complicit in the genocide taking place against the Palestinian people. Israel is an apartheid state with over 50 laws on the books that sanction discrimination against the Palestinian people.”

The BLM platform also drew ire for its support of BDS. Fear of its success continues to motivate Zionists into the present time. In a piece for Haaretz, Rabbi Dan Dorsch of Atlanta declared that the mainstream Jewish community, and also Palestinian Government officials, have rejected BDS.

He continued that connecting the Black struggle in American to that of Palestinians is “unquestionably shortsighted and will only undermine the credibility of the movement and the important cause of civil rights in America”.

Like several years before, when pro-Israel donors withdrew their funds from SNCC, Rabbi Dorsch was warning that the pattern would continue as long as BLM lent its support to Palestine. Returning to the question of whether Zionists can be anti-racist, the short answer is an emphatic “no.” Quoting a message from Jewish Voice for Peace: “If you oppose racism, you should oppose Zionism too.”

As BDS successes grow and the ICC moves closer to investigate Israel for war crimes, pro-Israel groups will increasingly try to sever anti-racist movements in the US from their ties to Palestinians. Nevertheless, given several factors—the historic connections between Palestine and anti-colonial movements around the world, coupled with the waning acceptance of Progressive Except Palestine–Israel will not succeed.

For example, in a recent article Ramzy Baroud noted that

“Israeli efforts at co-opting Africa countries received a major setback on Saturday, February, 6 when the African Union issued a strong statement of solidarity with Palestine, condemning Israel’s illegal settlement activities and the US’s so-called ‘Deal of the Century’.”

In return, Palestinians have supported movements against injustice around the globe. Documenting a new round of Palestinian uprisings within the Zionist entity, Gaza-based journalist Wafaa Al-Udaini chose to use a photo from another protest against the Israeli regime.

Dating back a year to the shooting of Iyad al-Halak, an unarmed autistic Palestinian man, Palestinians in the picture also hold signs calling attention to the killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis the previous week, an extralegal murder that they link with al-Halak.

While Palestinians understand the connections between their struggles and anti-colonial movements in other countries, many liberals in the U.S. do not. Nevertheless, as Marc Lamont Hill and Mitchell Plitnick outline in their new book, Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics, the days are over when so-called progressive public figures can join the anti-racist struggle at home while accepting gifts from Zionist organizations who fully support the Israeli apartheid state.

As Sarah Doyel notes in her review of Hill and Plitnick’s book, the authors observe that

“Democrats will take to the global stage to champion victims of other humanitarian crises, but Palestinians in Gaza living in what is commonly described as ‘the world’s largest open-air prison’ somehow merit little succor in the liberal worldview.”

Their work, Doyel concludes, is “a crucial and ultimately hopeful tool that better equips progressives to combat injustices within their own political circles.” Combined with the work of members of anti-colonial coalitions, some of whom convinced Alicia Garza to withdraw from Shmuley’s gala, perhaps anti-Zionists in the future will be strong enough to resist what will surely be increasing attacks on their political alignment with Palestinians.

– Benay Blend earned her doctorate in American Studies from the University of New Mexico. Her scholarly works include Douglas Vakoch and Sam Mickey, Eds. (2017), “’Neither Homeland Nor Exile are Words’: ‘Situated Knowledge’ in the Works of Palestinian and Native American Writers”. She contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Trump’s Opponents Succeeded With Their Government Coup (Ruslan Ostashko)

January 20, 2021

Translated and subtitled by Leo.

A successful coup was staged by opponents of Donald Trump in Washington on January 6. Of course, Joe Biden’s inauguration has not yet taken place, but at the moment the incumbent head of the United States looks broken and surrendered, and the Democratic Party is triumphant.

I greet you, our respectable subscribers of PolitRussia and once again congratulate you on the New Year 2021 and the Nativity of Christ. While we were calmly and peacefully celebrating these remarkable holidays, in the USA, there was a dramatic event for Donald Trump supporters. I was asked to speak out and and post daily by many subscribers on the geopolitical results of last year’s events. And so in December, I voiced an assumption that the head of the White House might try to keep the Democratic Party from taking power, by using extraordinary methods.

Right now, with the first 10 days of January passing, I have to admit that this option is not allowed to become reality, and the chance of it happening is close to 0%. The reason for this deplorable position for Trump is because of betrayal from the vice president’s side, Mike Pence and the further failed attempt to protest inside the Congress about the electoral votes going in favor of Biden. The move of protesting could have changed the outcome, but the misfortune with Trump is that this move was easy to foretell. And the Democrats cut short the session in Congress to arrange the so-called “capture of Capitol Hill by Trump supporters on January 6th.” The logical version of what happened in the capital of the USA was outlined by publicist Alexander Rogers.

Alexander Rogers: “While Trump supporters were peacefully rallying in front of the Capitol Hill, a group of unknown people, among which some of them were identified as BLM and Antifa activists, broke several windows in the back portion of the building, and got inside. Notice how they did it without firearms. Under the pretext that the building was under threat of seizure, the session in Congress gets interrupted exactly in the moment where Republicans protested the acceptance of the electoral votes from one of the disputed states – Arizona. It was very convenient for Democrats if they were worried that they would not be able to push the much needed decision.”

The so-called “seizure of Capitol Hill” was a staged provocation comparable to the Nazis igniting the Reichstag on fire, is evidenced by many facts, which came out after the events. For example, people who portrayed themselves as leaders of the Trump supporters, everyone turned out to be mummers or crisis actors and activists hired by Democrats operating under what’s called a ‘false flag’.

Aleksandr Aksenov (Telegram social media): “The [horned] shaman turned out to be actor Jake Angel, and was the so-called decoy ‘gatekeeper’ who was called upon to provoke the supporters of Trump. Here he is with Nancy Pelosi’s son-in-law, Michael Voss. It really does look like the Reichstag fire setup.”

Vatnik (Telegram): *Picture of two ‘Trump supporters’ who resemble two members of phillyantifa.org* “Listen, but were there any actual Trump supporters there? It turns out that the whole vanguard were made up of BLM-Antifa-Demo Leftists, from decoy ducks to goat provocateurs. And if there were any Republicans there, then they stupidly ran towards them.”

Real backers of Trump of course were there too, and they were shot at. Even to death, like [14 year] veteran of the US Air Force, 35 year old, Ashli Babbitt. Killed inside of the Capitol Hill building. But first of all, they were allowed inside the regime’s building without any resistance by the police.

*Video plays* – 3:35

Alexander Rogers: “The video where it’s seen that police are themselves allowing the protesters to get inside the Capitol. The tactic is simple: Dress Antifa members up as Trump supporters and disrupt the presentation of evidence [of election fraud] in Congress. Now Trump is the enemy, and they are working on various options of how to get him out of the way, deprive him of power and attempts to get a second term. Too easy and too suspicious. The leftovers of democracy in the USA are over.”

*Video ends* – 3:59

All of this was arranged for the sake of creating a media image meant to intimidate Republican congressmen. And the maneuver succeeded.

Alexander Rogers: “’Terrorists’ and ‘insurrectionists’ (such a friendly manner in which the democratic medias have called them) are given 30 minutes to fool around and make funny photos with Nancy Pelosi’s stand from the congressional hall. Seriously, tens of unarmed idiots, which didn’t do anything, besides taking pictures in the seat of the congressional speaker, were labelled as a universal evil, terrorists and ‘threats to democracy.’ And all of the media, all the journalists and a bunch of officials and congressmen with the most pompous looking faces are calling them a ‘scary threat to our way of life and our values.’ After which, calmly without a fight or gunshots or even an intervention by Bruce Willis and Gerard Butler, these horrible terrorists are removed from the building. On the sly, Pence bypassed the president and made a decision to deploy the National Guard to the capital. What is it called? Right, a governmental overthrow. Or in English, a coup. Oh yeah, Trump’s Twitter was blocked for 12 hours, and his address to the protesters to peacefully disperse was deleted by Facebook. This is exactly how a coup happens.”

The head of the USA trivially had his mouth shut, and couldn’t do anything at all since he was in the information space that is fully controlled by Democratic Party. And his opponents frolicked through all of it. Here we have someone’s ears stick out for half a meter. The main Maidanite [supporter of color revolutions] on the planet, Henri Lévy, quickly dumped the method he typically uses.

Bernard-Henri Lévy - Agent of Israel | The photo dossier - Radio Islam

Bernard-Henri Lévy: “Terrible image of vandals in hunting hats assaulting the seats of Jefferson and Roosevelt at the Capitol. Thousands of women and men gave their lives for this Republic. Millions dreamt of it. And billions watch it besieged by grotesque fascists.”

Vatnik (Telegram): “The great argument of calling you Hitler: ‘What point is there to talk to you if you’re like Hitler.’ Oh God, oh God. And a lying discourse to go with it: ‘Either you’re fully for democracy in our way, or you’re a fascist!’ Arguments at full length.”

For that reason they needed the hired clowns and the depicted caricature rednecks. But a serious man and woman during that time were sharpening their political steel, not walking away from the high tribune.

Alexander Rogers: “Here, Pence and Pelosi show up and declare that the meeting will be continued. A portion of the Republicans are demoralized, they declare that they no longer support the demand of a serious investigation in falsification of the election. Which the conspirators had wanted to hear. Looking at the objections of the rest of the states is removed from the agenda. Very convenient, what else is needed? The congressional meeting continues, and the duty clowns read text from already prepared papers about condemning the ‘horrible terrorists’, they intensely imitate a hearing (even though everybody says the same thing.) After which, the Capitol Hill Police outside is given an order to disperse the crowd by using tear gas and special equipment. The extras are no longer needed, the picture of ‘terrorists’ has already been drawn.”

Trump clearly was not prepared for such a vile provocation, it became a blow under his hook. But the opponents didn’t let them come to their senses and quickly unloaded their flywheel of repression. Trump was banned from everywhere [with social platforms] he possibly could. (Image shows he got banned from Facebook, Twitter, Google, Spotify, Snapchat, Instagram, Shopify, Reddit, Twitch, YouTube, Tik Tok and Pinterest.) His supporters that participated in the rally started to get pressed. Including those who just attended, but didn’t follow the provocateurs to Capitol Hill. The hidden hand of the market presses them. For those who did follow them, the democratic American media went after those people.

Maria Butina (Previous victim of US foreign agent claims and smear campaign. Her Telegram account): “Washington DC police published a list on January 7 of 736 people being indicted in connection to the protests and the infiltration of the Capitol. Citizens are accused of organizing a riot and a call for disorder, violence towards police officers, non-observance of curfew, violation of police fencing lines, penetration into private territory, possession of unregistered firearms, threats of violence, damage to property, robbery or attempted robbery, obscene acts, urination or bowel movements in a public place, threats of kidnapping, infliction of harm to the person and many other things.”

Sanctions under these articles are up to 10 years of imprisonment. And you don’t need to be a genius to understand that the detained Trump supporters will be condemned to their maximum sentences to scare the rest.

Chinese Threat (Telegram): “If the United States saw what the United States is doing inside the United States, the United States would have invaded the United States to liberate the United States from the tyranny of the United States.”

I congratulate all the storytellers who for decades sang to us about how fertile the state system of the USA is. It’s only a shame that these storytellers mostly live not in the creepy progressive United States, but rather in our lovable Russia. Where the provocateurs like Navalny for years are advocating for a violent change in state structures, yet walk free. Maybe it’s time for our so-called horrible totalitarian regime to take an example from the Democratic Party and tighten the screws? What do you think? Well at least for now, the information agents of foreign influence have not tried to attempt a coup here.

The Worst of Days for Trump & Trumpists

Image courtesy of Voice for America 
Patrick J. Buchanan (@PatrickBuchanan) | Twitter
Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.” To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators website at http://www.creators.com.

By Patrick J. Buchanan
Source: Creators

January 8, 2021 

President Donald Trump, it turns out, was being quite literal when he told us Jan. 6 would be “wild.”

And so Wednesday was, but it was also disastrous for the party and the movement Trump has led for the last five years.

Wednesday, the defeats of Senators Kelly Loeffler and David Perdue in Georgia’s runoff elections were confirmed. This translates into the GOP losing the Senate for the next two years.

Chuck Schumer now replaces Mitch McConnell as majority leader.

And the new 50-50 split will put Vice President-elect Kamala Harris, the president of the Senate on Jan. 20, in position to cast the deciding vote on every major issue where the two parties are evenly divided.

Wednesday, there also came the acceptance by both houses of Congress of Joe Biden’s 306-232 electoral vote victory over Trump. The last potential hurdle to Biden’s inauguration as 46th president of the United States has been removed.

But the worst of the day’s events for Trump came when a segment of a friendly crowd of 50,000 he just addressed concluded its march down the mall to the U.S. Capitol by smashing its way into the building and invading and occupying the Senate and House chambers.

Members of Congress were forced to flee and hide. A protester, an Air Force veteran, was shot to death by a Capitol cop. Vice President Mike Pence, who was chairing the joint session, was taken into protective custody by his Secret Service detail. Doors were broken open. Windows were smashed, and the building was trashed.

All this was seen on national television from mid afternoon through nightfall. The East and West fronts of the Capitol were occupied for hours by pro-Trump protesters, whom the president, his son Don Jr., and Rudy Giuliani had stirred up in the hours before the march down the mall.

What Americans watched was a mob occupation and desecration of the temple of the American Republic. And the event will be forever exploited to discredit not only Trump but the movement he led and the achievements of his presidency. He will be demonized as no one else in our history since Richard Nixon or Joe McCarthy.

Yet, just two months ago, Trump rolled up the highest vote total ever by an incumbent president, 74 million. And, according to four major polls, his approval remains where it has been for four years, between 40 and 50%.

What took place Wednesday was a disgrace and a debacle. But it was not, as some have wildly contended, comparable to 9/11 or to the British burning of the Capitol in 1814 during the War of 1812. That is malicious hyperbole, establishment propaganda.

On Sept. 11, 2001, more than 3,000 Americans died horribly when Manhattan’s World Trade Center twin towers came crashing down and the Pentagon was hit by a hijacked airliner. And there have been far more serious events in the lifetimes of many of us than this four-hour occupation of the Capitol.

In May 1970, after Nixon ordered an invasion of Cambodia to clean out Communist sanctuaries, National Guard troops, in panic, shot and killed four students at Kent State University in Ohio.

Hundreds of campuses exploded; hundreds of universities shut down for the semester. Scores of thousands of demonstrators poured into D.C. Buses, end-to-end, circled the White House. U.S. troops were moved into the basement of the Executive Office Building.

Today, there is absurd media talk of removing the president through impeachment or invocation of the 25th Amendment.

If the House votes impeachment, is the Senate going to hold a trial in 12 days to put Pence in the Oval Office? As for removing Trump through the 25th Amendment, this would require a declaration by Vice President Pence and half of the Cabinet that Trump is unfit to finish out a term that ends in two weeks. Not going to happen.

But undeniably, the events of Wednesday are going to split the Republican Party. And what does the future of that party now look like?

After Trump leaves the presidency, he will not be coming back. The opposition to him inside the GOP would prevent his nomination or would defect to prevent his reelection were he nominated again.

Yet, the size and strength of Trump’s movement is such that no Republican candidate he declares persona non grata could win the nomination and the presidency.

Trump’s supporters are today being smeared and castigated by the same media who lionized the BLM and antifa “peaceful protesters” who spent their summer rioting, looting, burning and pillaging Minneapolis, Milwaukee, Portland, Kenosha, Louisville and scores of other cities.

The Trumpists have been demonized before. They are used to this. And whatever their sins, disloyalty and ingratitude to the man they put in the presidency is not one of them.

Wednesday was a bad day for America, but it was not the Reichstag fire.

Is America’s Future a Civil War?

Will it become a world war?

Paul Craig Roberts - Official Homepage

Paul Craig Roberts

As a person who grew up in the glorious aftermath of World War II, it never occurred to me that in my later years I would be pondering whether the United States would end in civil war or a police state.  In the aftermath of the stolen presidential election, it seems a 50-50 toss up.

There is abundant evidence of a police state.  One feature of a police state is controlled explanations and the suppression of dissent.  We certainly have that in abundance. 

Experts are not permitted forums in which to challenge the official position on Covid.  

Teachers are suspended for giving offense by using gender pronouns.

Recording stars are dropped by their recording studios for attending the Trump rally.  Parents ratted on by their own children are fired from their jobs for attending the Trump rally. https://www.rt.com/usa/512048-capitol-riot-employees-fired/  Antifa is free to riot, loot, intimidate and hassle, but Trump supporters are insurrectionists. 

White people are racists who use hateful words and concepts, but those who demonize whites are righting wrongs.

Suppression of dissent and controlling behavior are police state characteristics.  It might be less clear to some why dictating permissible use of language is police state control. Think about it this way.  If your use of pronouns can be controlled, so can your use of all other words.  As concepts involve words, they also can be controlled.  In this way inconvenient thoughts and expressions along with accurate descriptions find their way into the Memory Hole.

With the First Amendment gone, or restricted to the demonization of targeted persons, such as “the Trump Deplorables,” “white supremacists,” “Southern racists,” the Second Amendment can’t have much life left.  As guns are associated with red states, that is, with Trump supporters, outlawing guns is a way to criminalize the red half of the American population that the Establishment considers “deplorable.”  Those who stand on their Constitutional right will be imprisoned and become cheap prison labor for America’s global corporations.

Could all this lead to a civil war or are Americans too beat down to effectively resist?  That we won’t know until it is put to the test.

Are there clear frontlines?  Identity Politics has divided the people across the entire country.  The red states are only majority red.  It is tempting to see the frontiers as the red center against the blue Northeast and West coasts, but that is misleading. Georgia is a red state with a red governor and legislature, but there were enough Democrats in power locally to steal the presidential and US senate elections.  

Another problem for reds is that large cities—the distribution centers—such as Atlanta, Detroit, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia, Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles—are in blue hands as are ports and international airports.  Effectively, this cuts reds off from outside resources.

What would the US military do?  Clearly, the Joint Chiefs and the military/security complex are establishment and not anti-establishment Trumpers.  With the soldiers themselves now a racial and gender mix, the soldiers would be as divided as the country.  Those not with the Establishment would lack upper level support.

Where are the youth and younger adults?  They are in both camps depending on their education. Many of the whites who went to university have been brainwashed against themselves, and regard white Americans as “systemic racists” or “white supremacists” and feel guilt. Those who did not go to university for the most part have experienced to their disadvantage the favoritism given to people of color and have resentment.

What about weapons?  How can the reds lose when guns are a household item and blues would never dirty themselves by owning one?  The answer is that unlike the War of Northern Aggression in the 1860s, today the weapons in the hands of the military are devastating compared to those in the hands of the public. Unlike in the past, it is impossible for a citizens’ militia to stand against the weapons and body armor that the military has.  So, unless the military splits, the reds are outgunned.  Never believe that the Establishment would not release chemical and biological agents against red forces.  Or for that matter nuclear weapons.

What about communications?  We know for an absolute fact that the tech monopolies are aligned with the Establishment against the people.  So much so that President Trump, in the process of being set-up for prosecution, has been cut off from communicating with his supporters both in social media and email.  

The American Establishment is doing to President Trump exactly what it did to Ukrainian President Yanukovych in Washington’s orchestrated “Maidan Revolution,” called “the Revolution of Dignity” by the liars at Wikipedia, and precisely what it did to Chavez, Maduro, and would like to do to Putin.

Suppose an American civil war occurs.  How is it likely to play out? Before investigating this, first consider how the Establishment could prevent it by bringing the red states to its defense.  The Trump supporters are the only patriots in the American population. They tend to wear the flag on their sleeve. In contrast, blue state denizens define partiotism as acknowledging America’s evils and taking retribution on those white racists/imperialists who committed the evils. In blue states, riots against the “racist system” result in defunding the police.  If the Antifa and Black Lives Matter militias were sicced on the Biden regine, red state patriots might see “their country” under attack. It is possible that the “Proud Boys” would come to Biden’s defense, not because they believe in Biden but because America is under attack and he is “our president.” Alternatively, an Antifa attack on the Biden regime could be portrayed as an unpatriotic attack on America and be used to discourage red state opposition to the police state, just as “Insurrection” has resulted in many Trump supporters declaring their opposition to violence.  In other words, it is entirely possible that the patriotism of the “Trump Deplorables” would split the red state opposition and lead to defeat.

Assuming that the Establishment is too arrogant and sure of itself or too stupid to think of this ploy, how would a civil war play out?  The Establishment would do everything possible to discredit the case of the “rebels.”  The true rebels, of couse, would be the Establishment which has overthrown the Constitutional order, but no media would make that point.  Controlling the media, the Establishment, knowing of the patriotism of its opponents, would portray the “rebels” as foreign agents seeking to overthrow American Democracy. 

The “foreign threat” always captures the patriot’s attention.  We see it right now with Trump supporters falling for the disinformation that Switzerland and Italy are behind the stolen election. Previously, it was Dominion servers in Germany and Serbia that did the deed.

On whose head will the Establishment place the blame for “the War Against America”? There are three candidates: Iran, China, and Russia.  Which will the Establishment choose?  

To give Iran credit conveys too much power to a relatively small country over America.  To blame Iran for our civil war would be belittling. 

To blame China won’t work, because Trump blamed China for economically undermining America and Trump supporters are generally anti-China. So accusing the red opposition with being China agents would not work. 

The blame will be placed on Russia.  

This is the easy one.  Russia has been the black hat ever since Churchill’s Iron Curtain speech in 1946.  Americans are accustomed to this enemy.  The Cold War reigned from the end of World War II until the Soviet Collapse in 1991.  Many, including retired American generals, maintain that the Soviet collapse was faked to put us off guard for conquest.

When the Establishment decided to frame President Trump, the Establishment chose Russia as Trump’s co-conspirator against American Democracy.  Russiagate, orchestrated by the CIA and FBI, ensured for three years that Trump was accused in the Western media of being in cahoots with Russia. Despite the lack of any evidence, a large percentage of the American and world population was convinced that Trump was put into office by Putin somehow manipulating the vote.

The brainwashing was so successful that three years of Trump sanctions against Russia could not shake the Western peoples back into factual reality.

With Russia as the historic and orchestrated enemy, whatever happens in the United States that can be blamed elsewhere will be blamed on Russia.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, former US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, and former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes have already associated “Trump’s insurrection” with Russia. https://www.rt.com/russia/512071-capitol-violence-consequences-fear/ 

Suppose that an American civil war becomes intense.  Suppose that the Establishment’s propaganda against Russia becomes the reigning belief as propaganda almost always becomes, how can the Establishment not finish the insurrection threat by attacking the country responsible?  The Establishment would be trapped in its own propaganda. Emotions would run away.  Russia would hear threats that would have to be taken seriously.

You can bet that Biden’s neocon government will be egging this on.  American exceptionalism. American hegemony.  Russia’s fifth column, the Atlanticist Integrationists, who wish absorption into the degenerate and failing Western World, will echo the charges against Russia. This would make the situation a serious international incident with Russia as the threatened villian.  

What would the Kremlin do?  Would Russia’s leaders accept yet another humiliation and false accusation? Or will the anger of the Russian people forever accused and never stood up for by their own government force the Kremlin into awareness that Russia could be attacked at any moment.

Even if the Kremlin is reluctant to acknowledge the threat of war, what if another of the numerous false warnings of incoming ICBMs is received.  Unlike the past, is it believed this time?

The stolen election in America, the emerging American Police State, more vicious and better armed than any in the past, could result in American chaos that could be a dire threat to the Russian Federation.

What Trump and his supporters, and perhaps the Kremlin, do not understand is that real evidence no longer counts. The Establishment makes up the evidence that it needs for its agendas.  Consider how easy it was for the Capitol Police to remove barriers and allow some Antifa mixed in with Trump supporters into the Capitol.  This was all that was required to create a “Trump led insurrection” that terminated the presentation of evidence of electoral fraud and turned the massive rally of support for Trump into a liability. Trump now leaves the presidency as an “insurrectionist” and is set up for continued harassment and prosecution.  

As I prevousy wrote, the stolen election and its acceptance abroad signifies the failure of Western democracy. The collapse of the Western world and its values will affect the entire world. 

BIDEN’S PYRRHIC VICTORY

South Front

Written and produced by SF Team: J.Hawk, Daniel Deiss, Edwin Watson

As predicted, the election turned out to be considerably closer than most pundits and polls predicted. In spite of polling that suggested Biden leading Trump by a margin of 5%-15%, in actuality the popular vote margin of victory turned out to be more in the vicinity of modest 3%, a remarkably lackluster showing on the part of a veteran political operative like Biden running against an incumbent whose tenure in office was characterized by a mishandled pandemic and a crashing economy. Granted, much of the blame for that ought to be shouldered by the Congress, state governors, and their legislatures. No institution of US governance is coming out of this crisis with an enhanced but, to quote Harry Truman, “the buck stops” in the Oval Office.

The weak margin of victory is nevertheless solid enough to survive legal challenges from Team Trump, which moreover lacks serious heavyweight operatives at the helm. The 2000 election hinged on the outcome in a single state—Florida—which in turn hinged on a recount in a single county. That was not an insurmountable challenge to the likes of James Baker, a long-time Bush family retainer, and it was likewise not overly unpalatable to the courts. This time, however, the situation is far more complex. It is no longer a matter of mis-counted ballots. In order to give victory to Trump, the courts would have to in effect invalidate tens of thousands of ballots in several states, on the grounds that they were counted as valid votes in violation of existing laws and regulations. Barring an extreme case of malfeasance by election officials in several states, something that is yet to be demonstrated, it is unlikely in the extreme the US court system will be willing to set a precedent that in the long term could fatally undermine the entire US system of elections.

Having said that, even senior GOP officials are happy to go along with the argument that Trump was robbed of victory through electoral fraud, in the form of abuse of mail-in ballots. There is literally no political penalty to pay for that, and moreover casting lasting doubt on the legitimacy of Biden’s victory represents payback for the last four years of Democrats casting doubt on the legitimacy of Trump’s victory through the RussiaGate scandal. One has to wonder whether Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s echoing of Trump’s allegations of voter fraud were at least in part motivated by him having to put up with being commonly referred to as “Moscow Mitch” on social media.  Spending the next four years investigating Biden family finances, and particularly Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine, China, and other regions whose politicians have an interest in being in Joe Biden’s good graces, is vastly preferable to four more years of RussiaGate.

Nevertheless, the GOP machine will hardly much expend political capital on behalf of Donald Trump, in support of his quest to emerge as the winner of the 2020 election. While Trump proved to be a remarkably effective party base motivator, far better at the task than literally any GOP politician of note, he nevertheless poses a long-term threat to the stability of the two-party system. Worse, Trump’s victory in 2020 would have doomed the GOP to major losses in US Congress, governorships, and state legislature in 2022 and 2024, with Trump himself being almost inevitably followed into the White House by a Democrat in 2024, and possibly a very leftist Democrat at that. That is a scenario that neither party wants to see, but to the GOP it would represent a close brush with death.

With Biden and Harris in the White House, both of them relatively unpopular politicians in their own right lacking even the fake charisma of Barack Obama, GOP is likely to rebound very quickly from losing the White House. Even now it looks like a Pyrrhic victory for Biden, whose party will not retake the US Senate barring the unlikely victory in both of Georgia’s runoff races that will take place in January—by which time Biden’s gradual walking away from campaign promises and shifting ever further to the right will have demoralized the base of the Democratic Party—and will have actually suffered losses in the House of Representatives. Biden’s victory also has not translated into any gains at all in state races. So instead of having the Democrats control all three branches of the Federal government by 2024 and at the same time enjoy expanded influence in State governments, it appears rather likely the GOP will return to that level of political dominance in only four short years. Sacrificing Trump is a price well worth paying for it. While it is too early to say who will be the GOP’s champion in the 2024 presidential elections, Donald Trump created an original blueprint for running an effective presidential campaign championing a conservative version of national greatness with a strong element of insular nationalism, as opposed to the aggressive nationalism of globalization that the Democrats embrace. Almost regardless of who the Republican nominee is, they will run a modified version of Trump’s campaign, and they will do so with a high likelihood of success.

Biden’s own likely legacy as a one-term president will be the product of the combination of pandemic and associated economic crisis, and the Obama Alumni Association that will be running his administration. One should not forget Joe Biden won his first election to the US Senate by running a “law and order” campaign in 1972, the year of Richard Nixon’s spectacular re-election landslide that resulted from his application of the so-called “Southern Strategy” of exploiting the backlash to civil rights among the White population of not only the Southern states. Over the decades, Biden himself rode that backlash to successive re-elections to US Senate by running campaigns with only thinly disguised racist themes. That record all but vanished from public memory as soon as Biden was chosen as Obama’s running mate. The fact that Biden, an architect of many crime bills whose effect has been to disproportionately incarcerate Blacks, chose someone like Kamala Harris who enthusiastically applied the provisions of Biden’s crime bills, indicates Biden has not moved past his 1972 persona. While paying lip service to “Black Lives Matter” and other slogans of the day, Biden’s campaign worked really hard to attract suburban White GOP voters and made hardly an effort to woo the growing Hispanic constituency. Biden also has no use for such hot-button issues as Defund the Police, Green New Deal, Medicare for All, that are sacrosanct to the most enthusiastic left wing of the Democratic Party. It is already evident that the individuals Biden is appointing to his transition team and vetting for administration positions, including the just-announced Chief of Staff Ronald Klain, represent a return to the discredited policies of the Democratic Leadership Council.

Likewise when it comes to foreign policy, we are likely to see all manner of retreads from the Obama Administration and a continuation of the aggressive foreign policy from those years. Biden has already made it clear there will be no reduction in defense spending, no withdrawal from “US leadership”, and a return to an emphasis on “human rights” which collectively suggest redoubled regime change efforts around the globe. There is even talk of Hillary Clinton becoming the US Ambassador to the United Nations, where she would presumably continue to ply her brand of American Exceptionalism. All in all, Biden’s ascent to the presidency feels like the post-Napoleonic Bourbon Restoration. Alas, just as the Bourbons “learned nothing and forgot nothing”, everything points to the Democrats making a very similar mistake for which they, and the country, will pay for dearly.

After Trump the flood:

After Trump the flood:

December 08, 2020

by Ghassan and Intibah Kadi for the Saker Blog

Whether there was indeed voter fraud and rigging, and I personally believe there was and at a huge scale, it seems that, by hook or by crook, Joe Biden will become the next President of the United States of America; and we should prepare ourselves for this, regardless of our political points of view and inclinations.

The presence of Biden in the Whitehouse will definitely change course on a number of issues, both domestically within the USA and overseas, but the objective of this article is to shed a bit of light on what is likely to happen to the current pro-Biden camp and the diverse array of supporters who have helped elevate him to this position.

In more ways than one, I have always seen in Syria a microcosm of world politics and conflicts. Long before the enemies of Syria decided to launch their attack in March 2011, the masterminds of the conspiracy put the most unlikely allies together, only united by their hatred of Syria. Back then I called them the ‘Anti-Syrian Cocktail’. Those allies each had their own agenda regarding Syria and had nothing in common other than their desire to remove President Bashar Al-Assad from office. Among the issues they disagreed on was his replacement, how to share the spoils, not to mention the alternative political system to install, Syria’s future position in the region, international alliances, and so forth.

With a whole array of enemies, Trump inadvertently caused a rounding up of a very loosely-united anti-Trump-cocktail; only united by their hatred of him. So, let’s face it and acknowledge it; they will never let him win the November 2020 elections. Though only united by their hatred of Trump, there are too many of them, they are powerful; extremely powerful, and they are very determined to get rid of him by any means possible, legal, illegal, using tactics like bribery, intimidation, threats, thuggery, and they have no one to fear because, collectively they have given each other impunity, covering each other’s backs and producing a culture where criticizing them is taboo. Crucially, the ‘law’ and the media are on their side.

With the exception of the Clintons and Bidens perhaps, the other Democrats have their traditional political opposition to Trump, even when they see and know he is making good decisions. This is the golden rule of political duopoly. But the Clintons and the Bidens have personal dirt on them and even blood on their hands that they want to keep the lid on in order to avoid prosecution and possibly even jail. They are likely to remain united after a Trump loss, but the same cannot be said about other odd couples.

Most of the other November 2020 Biden supporters are destined to be on a collision course, and they will soon enough realize that their differences are much stronger than what united them and that they were taken for fools. None will be disappointed more than the so-called ‘Progressives’.

The definition of the term progressive has morphed quite significantly over the last decade or so. Currently, it seems to include any one who stands up against Trump; and this is the primordial cause of the confusion and reason for future conflict between them. In reality, what defines the term ‘progressive’ in any existing progressive movement can be totally different from that of another movement; and the difference is not necessarily marginal. Being ‘progressive’ in the 21st Century implies the presence of a very specific agenda or slogan that may or may not be compatible with other ‘progressive’ agendas.

Take the Assange supporters for example. The moment they wake up from their deep slumber, they will realize that the man they supported to become President is actually the leader of the political party that has put Assange in jail for exposing his party’s dirt. I hope that Trump pulls the rug from underneath their feet and pardons Assange before the 20th of January 2021. But will this show the Assange supporters who is who? Not necessarily because if they wanted to open up their eyes and see, they would have seen from day one that Assange’s biggest enemy is none but Hillary Clinton and that she is the one responsible for his demise; not Trump.

But the Assange supporters did not play a major role in the elections; at least not directly, and at least not as much as their closest ‘progressives’; the peace activists.

The Democrats and their cohorts have portrayed Trump as a warmonger. When peace activists eventually see that Biden will have to serve his warlord masters and start new wars across the globe, they will have to think again. He is already touting hiring well known hawks in key positions in his forthcoming cabinet and team of advisors, with his Defense Secretary reportedly selected.

When it comes to street power however, none has been more powerful and effective as the combination of BLM and the environmentalists.

BLM activists have just fallen a tad short of blaming Trump for an American five-century long history of racism. But how much do BLM activists really care about Climate Change and specifically about Greta-type environmental vision of how the world should run? Moreover, most environmentalists, if not all of them, are anti-vaxxers. When they see that Biden is the trump card for the vaccine empire, they may wish they didn’t take to the streets to unseat the Trump card they had in the Whitehouse. If there is/was one person standing up against the malevolent “Gates vaccine”, it has to be Trump, and the single-issue anti-vaxxers are against Trump. Try to make sense of this.

This is not to forget and ignore that the Climate Change activists will soon find out, the hard way, that Biden will not come clean on the zero-emission promise; not only because he doesn’t want to, not only because he goes to bed with the petro-dollar lobby, but also because he does not have the alternative technology to replace fossil fuel with.

In and out and in between the BLM and Climate Change activists, what do the Climate Change activists have in common ideologically with BLM and at what stage will they break ranks and decide to go against one another? What will happen after either one of them accuses the other, rightfully I must say, that they have been used as pawns by the ‘Deep State’?

And who said that the BLM has more in common with the LBGTI community and activists than it does with the gun lobby? Sections of the BLM likely also love guns.

And speaking of Greta, for how much longer will she able to keep up the fallacy that her agenda and those of her friends Soros and the World Economic Forum (WEF), and its members that include Monsanto, are actually compatible?

And for the right or wrong reasons, who is to guarantee that the tens of millions of Trump supporters are going to sit and accept that the election win of Biden is legitimate and that they have to swallow it? Will this cause social strife, violence on the streets, even worse perhaps civil war and much more? We don’t know. What we do know is that a controversy about election results should have been dealt with in total transparency in order to put all concerns to rest. But this is not happening, and it is not going to happen because a decision has been made against Trump dictating that he must lose.

But the after-Trump-effect is not necessarily going to affect only America. Right-wing politics, including the extreme version of it, have been on the rise in the world, and especially in Western Europe. And if the Neo-Nazis look threatening because their ideology is based on a very dark chapter in human history, what do we really know is on the agenda of the forces that have combined the very diverse elements of the anti-Trump cocktail in order to serve its objective(s)? What is it really that they want?

Hitler was at least clear about his mission statement. He wanted an Aryan Third Reich to rule the world for a thousand years. The rest of the world did not have to wonder and ponder about his intentions. He sent a very clear message to rest of the world, a message clear enough to unite the West with the Bolsheviks against him.

But today, we have an invisible driving force that has managed to put together an array of the most unlikely partners in order to fight a common cause. Do we not at least ask the question ‘why?’

In the case of Syria, the answer to the ‘why’ question was to topple Assad, albeit without having a plan that went further, at least as a united coalition. It would have been impossible for the plotters and planners to each disclose what they had in mind. In reality, they did not have any plan at all other than replacing him with a void. Fast-forward; the get-rid-of-Trump plan is very similar; get rid of him without having a plan so as to ensure all participants are pleased and appeased, because the plan seems to also be based on replacing Trump with chaos and anarchy.

The irony here is that the anti-Trump-cocktail is not only comprised of his political opponents, mainstream media, social media, but also includes government agencies such as the DOJ, the CIA, the FBI and even some American Republicans.

Briefly put, Trump has been chosen to lose, but after him, the flood is imminent. The current allies who lobbied against him will very shortly come to the realization that they are no longer united, and some will even turn into enemies fighting over the spoils of the win.

In more ways than one, they will harvest the fruit of the seeds they planted, and they will rightfully deserve all consequences. A Biden win is the most befitting ‘punishment’ of the anti-Trump cocktail.

Apart from the hapless American populace, the biggest loser of this all is the international stature of America as the leader of the so-called Democratic Free World. In a fitting blowback for these pernicious actors, Trump would have proven without a shadow of doubt, that the Deep State is so deep and powerful, powerful enough to mobilize its own enemies to serve it. At that point, to quote the rhetoric of the “Great Reset” agenda, but again, as blowback, things will never be the same again for these dangerous characters.

Why Joe Biden Can’t Unify America

As the Democratic party tumbles into the morass of racial and identity politics, Joe Biden will find it almost impossible to unify his own party, let alone America.

by Scott McConnell

Donald Trump faced an unfairly hostile press and was burdened with innumerable deficits of his own making, but in comparison with Joe Biden he held one clear advantage at the outset of his term: he had beaten fair and square his ideological rivals in his own party. The GOP establishment retained considerable power in the House and Senate—and Trump couldn’t govern without them. But Trump had beaten—no, whipped—Bush and Rubio and Cruz, and they knew it. He could draw large crowds and they couldn’t. His authority over the GOP may have been resented; the “resistance” to him from the Deep State and affluent suburbanites was formidable and eventually brought him down, but no one could deny that his ascension was based on one hard currency of politics, namely, mass voter enthusiasm.

Biden, a likeable enough centrist senator, can boast of no such thing. He prevailed, as Christopher Caldwell cogently reminds us, after an embarrassingly poor start to his campaign, (fourth and fifth-place finishes in Iowa and New Hampshire), salvaged by a critical endorsement from a South Carolina congressman who probably influences more votes than any politician in America, immediately followed by a panicked rush of the party establishment to close ranks against the socialist Bernie Sanders. Though American presidential campaigns last far too long, this critical period seemed to pass in a nanosecond. Congressman James Clyburn’s church ladies (and Biden’s unobjectionable tenure as Barack Obama’s vice president) put him over the top in South Carolina. Next, Michael Bloomberg, Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar immediately dropped out (the latter two having beaten Biden, sometimes decisively, in states where voters actually see a great deal of the candidates). Elizabeth Warren stayed in to battle Bernie for the party’s Left vote. Biden swept Super Tuesday just as the coronavirus was shutting down the country. It was almost certainly the most underwhelming route to a nomination in recent American political history. 

The party which nominated Biden is more divided than the one Trump dominated in 2016; the difference is the battle between the factions hasn’t been joined yet. Socialists would make common cause with deep state and corporate world neoliberals in believing, (or pretending to believe—it can be hard to distinguish) that Donald Trump constituted some sort of unique threat to American democracy. But with Trump gone, they share nothing. One can imagine a gifted politician (a Bill Clinton in his prime) able to soothe the divisions and partially placate the losers; it’s unlikely Biden could manage that at any point in his career.

The splits are as stark as those which separated Mayor Richard Daley and other party “regulars” from the McGovernites who beat them in 1972, but also more complicated. There is a liberal—or socialist-curious—Left that is genuinely concerned about the economic inequality which has been growing in the United States for forty years—Elizabeth Warren, and, in a more dogmatic and further left way, Sanders spoke for them. There is the identity politics faction, which shares their radicalism, ignores economic inequities unless they concern blacks or Hispanics, and is interested in a full-scale cultural war against whiteness, which means against much of American culture and history. Both groups endorsed Sanders but it is not clear how much they share with one another. They share virtually nothing with Michael Bloomberg or other Wall Street titans who contributed heavily to the Biden campaign.

One consequence is that in the early rounds of the Biden transition, every choice has been racially fraught. For the past five days, hundreds of Black Lives Matter (BLM) protestors have laid siege to the home of Los Angeles mayor Eric Garcetti, protesting against the possibility he would be given a cabinet post in the Biden administration. They opposed Garcetti, a Biden campaign co-chair and probably California’s most well-known Latino elected official, for rejecting BLM demands to defund the Los Angeles police department. California governor Gavin Newsom’s choice of a candidate to fill out the Senate term of Vice President-elect Kamala Harris is debated entirely on the basis of identity politics, with blacks and Latinos and LGBTQ groups each proclaiming that one of their “community” deserves the seat; one hears no arguments made on the basis of the character, intellect, or political talents of their favored candidates. Democratic intra-party politics increasingly resembles a zero-sum game of identity competitions, carried out under the feel-good banners of inclusion and diversity.

And yet if the identity politics movement since the first protests following the death of George Floyd seems more radical, pervasive, and frightening, it was not obvious that its beliefs had penetrated into the consciousness of those who were neither college students, young people not yet tied to work and family, or professional liberal activists. In the most bellwether ideological election held since the great awakening, Californians returned to the ballot box once more to pass judgement on race-based affirmative action, which had been made illegal by 53 to 47 percent referendum vote in 1996. In this summer of racial reckoning, liberals in the legislature had pushed for a revote, believing that the state’s changed racial composition, (fewer whites, more Latinos, more Asians) would allow a reversal of that result and give formal sanction for preferential treatment on the basis of race to be used to increase diversity and overcome legacies of past discrimination.

Race-based affirmative action, along with the conundrums of law enforcement, have been the only consequences of the Civil Rights revolution of the 1960s to remain under any serious political or cultural contestation. But since a Vietnam veteran named Allan Bakke famously sued for admission to a California medical school while clearly establishing that his grades and test scores were higher than minority applicants admitted in his stead, it has been a fraught issue, decided ambiguously by the Supreme Court. In California, voters had opted for state neutrality regarding race; now, in the summer of racial justice, progressives assumed they would reverse course.

The voters’ answer disappointed the state’s entire Democratic establishment (which unanimously supported the rollback) and the corporate donors who gave the rollback side a 20-1 spending advantage. Nonetheless, California’s diverse and strongly Democratic electorate still wanted race neutrality, voting for it by a larger margin (56-44) than they had in 1997. Latinos voters split down the middle, Asians and whites voted against the reinstitution of racial preferences.

Meanwhile, in Democratic strongholds of northern Virginia and New York City, Asian parents were leading campaigns to keep exam-based elite public schools alive: against them were arrayed progressive politicians and bureaucrats and Black Lives Matter activists who sought to eliminate tests which measure math and verbal competence and replace them with measures that would reduce the number of gifted students in elite schools—in the name, naturally, of inclusion and diversity.

These local battles take place largely under the national radar as Biden struggles to name a cabinet that will be “the most inclusive in history”—while at the same time assuring that key foreign policy posts are given to the kind of neoliberal Iraq war supporters he is most familiar and comfortable with. Indeed, the battle of leaks and emails over whether the next secretary of defense will be a woman or a black is debated almost entirely without reference to the Pentagon’s mission and how to best carry it out. Then there is the probable nomination of Neera Tanden, who has spent the past several years denouncing Republicans on Twitter, to run the Office of Management and Budget, a nomination that hardly constitutes an olive branch to Republicans.

There is no way to see how Biden or his party squares these circles, which would confound a more vigorous politician with a more robust electoral mandate. As the Soviet Union was fading, Georgi Arbatov, an intellectual close to the Politburo, famously remarked that Moscow was going to cause great problems for the United States by “depriving it of an enemy.” He may have been right. Trump has fulfilled the same function for the Democratic coalition; now that Dr. Evil is gone, the knives will come out. This is why the safest political prediction is that those who voted for a “return to normalcy” under Biden are in for a rude disappointment indeed.

Scott McConnell is founding editor of the American Conservative and author of Ex-Neocon: Dispatches from the Post-9/11 Ideological Wars.

Biden Transition Team Says First Amendment is Flawed Because It Permits “Hate Speech”

Source

Biden Transition Team Says First Amendment is Flawed Because It Permits “Hate Speech”

from Paul Craig Roberts

I told you this would happen. No one is to be allowed to speak against the official explanationshttps://www.rt.com/usa/506751-biden-propagandist-anti-free-speech/

Biden’s transition team defines truth as hate speech. Truth is what the Democrat left, military/security complex, and presstitutes don’t want spoken or written.

“All speech is not equal,” declared Biden transition leader Richard Stengal, a former presstitute for MSNBC.

“Truth” is reserved for what serves the anti-white leftwing of the Democrat Party, the allied military/security complex and global elite. This means that no Trump supporter  speaks the truth and his/her hate speech must be silenced. Keith Olbermann’s demand for the arrest of President Trump and Tucker Carlson of Fox News is the beginning. https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/keith-olbermann-calls-for-the-arrests-of-trump-and-tucker-carlson

The vote theft is the opening gun of a civil war in which white Americans will have to fight or be relegated to third class citizens. The 14th amendment is also dead. Trump Deplorables are no longer equal under the law.  They are denied free speech, but all others have free speech to denounce white America more harshly than Nazis are reported to have denounced Jews. Antifa and Black Lives Matter have begun the Kristallnachts. Those who tell the truth are losing the protection of the US Constitution.  Only liars are protected.

The obviously stolen election is a coup against democracy and America. If the American legal system fails to stand up to a stolen election, unless white Americans submit to third class status, violence is our future.

“Teacher d’assumption’s statement – Reframing the racism debate”

November 11, 2020

“Teacher d’assumption’s statement – Reframing the racism debate”

By Leo Abina – A concerned World Citizen – for the Saker Blog

Going back as far as I can remember, the story of what my dad’s 1930s primary school teacher would say at the start of every school day has been ingrained in my family’s narrative for half a century. “Whites build locomotives. Negroes can’t produce a needle. Whites are civilized. Negroes are savages.” As he would recount this story, my dad would always add, with a mischievous chuckle, “my few other African classmates in that class would be outraged by this statement; but not me. For me, d’Assumption’s ‘greeting to the class’ became a source of motivation to excel, especially in mathematics and science, just to prove him wrong.” Over the years, teacher d’Assumption’s[1] statement would never fail to ignite passionate debates, emotions, and reactions among family members; me included.

During my childhood, in the 60s and 70s, I lived the life of a privileged West-African boy from a well-to-do family, growing up in multi-racial social networks, attending private schools in Africa and Europe, oblivious to the vicissitudes of both subtle and raw racism. During these early years, teacher d’Assumption’s statement felt like a distant, no longer relevant, piece of nasty colonial history that I did not fully understand but felt needed to just be forgotten.

As a youngster coming of age and completing tertiary education in the 80s and 90s, I lived through the collapse of the Soviet Union, the uninhibited advent of market-driven globalization, and the shift towards finance, rather than ‘goods and services’ -dominated economies. My thoughts about teacher d’Assumption’s statement during those years were that “aspiring to build African locomotives out of pride was wasteful and misguided development strategy.” What would be smarter, I argued, was “investing African capital to own shares in railway manufacturing companies, so as to better facilitate the deployment of railway infrastructure in Africa; while at the same time, striving to build competence in railway technology.’

Then came the beginning of my expat years. My first forays into the ‘real world’ of business, outside the manicured lawns and precious wood paneled walls of US Ivy League campuses. Those years brought my first encounters with the realities of ‘subtle,’ though at times not so ‘subtle,’ corporate double standards. I had up to then bought into the neo-liberal ethos about free and fair markets; only to discover that in reality, most markets, even within the western sphere of influence, were neither free nor fair. Corporate battles within the western world are testimony that strategic technologies are protected; Boeing vs Airbus, Apple vs Microsoft, Siemens vs GE, are but a few legendary examples of this reality. These examples helped me realize that my earlier thoughts about how Africans should use capital in order to play the economic game to their advantage might have been overly naive – state interventions do play a major role in today’s so called ‘free markets’, and the bigger the state, the stronger the interventions. Even in the apparently ‘leveled playing field’ of our modern world, teacher d’Assumption’s worldview seemed as entrenched and relevant as it ever was.

As I look back through the eyes and battle scars of a 50-something, I get an uneasy sense that humanity has remained stuck on this all-important racism issue. On one side of the issue, white folks are conditioned to inherently hold a sense of superiority, backed by centuries of modern western world dominance. While on the other side of the issue, brown folks, no matter where they live in the world, their place in society, or their achievements, feel a sense of injustice, inadequacy, and alienation, in a historical period dominated by the modern western construct; a construct in which they can at best live as ‘acceptable strangers,’ or at worst as victims or rebels.

Taking a closer look at these perspectives on racism might provide a better premise to bring the two main conflicting parties – the white, western European dominant side, and the non-white (brown) global-south side, nearer each other.

Let us begin with the white perspective. Looking at the advent of modern western civilization over the past 300 years, as well as today’s global power dynamics, one can easily understand why a 21st-Century white person might have an innate sense of superiority. Why in our times, even an unaccomplished, hopeless, inept white person of European descent would still feel superior to an accomplished, gifted, and successful brown person.

In a nutshell, this frame of mind stems from the observation that for the past few centuries, the modern western civilization managed to subjugate much of the rest of our world. Through naval supremacy and superior weaponry resulting in tremendous military might, small European nations with tiny territories and lesser populations were able to project power globally and overwhelm much larger, usually brown, peoples. These past conquests still resonate in the psyche of many modern Europeans, and in the view of many, bear witness to the greater ingenuity of the white race. Once the lands of the brown people were subdued and a colonial order was established to channel vast amounts of natural resources from the colonies to the colonial capitals, in the eyes of many Europeans, this exploitative world order was, and is to this day, justified.

For in their narrative, it is Europeans, in the first place, who knew and understood the value of these natural resources. Whereas the brown natives, who might have been sitting on these natural resources for centuries, a. did not have an industrial base to know the value of what was under their feet b. did not have the technology and means to access and exploit these natural resources, and c. did not have the capacity and strength to protect them. Therefore, it is only natural that those who have the knowledge, technology, and power to access natural resources should also have the nature-given right to exploit them.

Then comes the moral aspect, especially as it relates to one of the most gruesome episodes in the long racism saga: the trans-Atlantic slave trade. In public and in the name of political correctness, most white people who only have a passing acquaintance with slavery do feel a sense of guilt about it. However, upon greater scrutiny through which they come to understand the historical context of slavery, and in view of recent south-to-north emigration dynamics, in private, many other white people do not share that sense of guilt.

The rationale here is twofold. First, there is the very controversial observation that during the slave trade, Africa was not occupied; therefore and by-enlarge, it was mostly African chieftains who sold other Africans into slavery. If brown people were ready to sell their own kind into slavery while Europeans needed labor to build ‘the new world in the Americas,’ why should only one of the two parties lose the moral high ground? Second, decades after slavery and colonization, we live in a time of massive south-north migration where millions of brown people are ready to leave their own independent countries and risk their lives across deserts and seas in search of a better life in the white man’s ‘land of milk and honey.’ Isn’t that further testimony of the white man’s more aspirational, and therefore superior, way of life?

This old, profound inter-racial legacy explains why an unaccomplished white person would still feel superior to a gifted brown person. The white indigent person sees brown people parading in fancy clothes, fancy cars, fancy homes, and thinks, “this high life these brown people aspire to and are so fond of, was brought about by us.”

Let us now turn to the brown perspective. The brown person’s experience in today’s modern western civilization is an experience filled with contradictions. On one hand there is an attraction to the outward semblance of freedom, equality and fraternity professed by the West. On the other hand there is a rejection of the inward reality of coercion, double standards, and racism perpetrated by that very same West. In this context, the brown person’s best option often consists in navigating these contradictions as deftly and quietly as possible, with no overt defiance to the established order. I once attended an event where the condition of black Brazilians came up in the discussion; a white Brazilian businessman who was present casually responded; “we do not have a racial problem in Brazil because in Brazil, brown people know their place!”

Besides the cruelty, hurtful meaning, and Brazilian frame of reference of this remark, it basically captured the essence of brown peoples’ lives everywhere in the modern world. No matter where they live, what their personal circumstances are, whether they are conscious of it or not, racism is an integral part of brown peoples’ day-to-day reality. Of course, in the modern era the crude state-sanctioned form of racism that prevailed up to the 1960s has rescinded, but nonetheless racism is still alive and well in today’s world context, albeit in different forms according to different environments.

The western-dominated world order dates back to at least three centuries. Its latest, modern iteration was established at the end of World War II by the victorious powers. On the economic front, western dominance happened de facto through the establishment of the Bretton Woods institutions in 1944 – the World Bank and the IMF. On the political front, the United Nations was founded with the noble mandate to prevent future wars, and a 5-nations Security Council made up of the most powerful nations was formed to protect this mandate, as well as approve or veto United Nations resolutions. In reality, this system and the highly biased, misrepresentative nature of its governing body, the Security Council, has been used outwardly for the benefit of the ‘international community,’ but inwardly for the interests of a tiny, West-led, part of the world. On the cultural front, dominance pretty much occurred by default through the ubiquitous reach of western media, western movies, and western broadcasting power.

In a second phase spanning through the 70s, 80s and 90s, the post-war world order was further reshaped with the formation of a new, dollar-based monetary system (no longer backed by gold), a massive shift in geo-politics with the fall of the USSR, a series of international trade agreements, and the advent of satellite-based communications and information technologies. Last but not least, the West’s military dominance was further strengthened by the eastern expansion of NATO, and the broad deployment of military bases around the world – nearly a thousand for the US alone, with a $900b yearly military budget that is larger than all European countries’ military budgets put together, and 10x Russia’s.

In recent years this unipolar, US-dominated world order is being challenged by a re-emerging modern Russia, and by regional powers such as China, India and Brazil. Nonetheless, western power remains formidable and remains overwhelmingly white. As a result of this reality, for most brown people around the world the real question has not so much been about whether the modern western ethos harbors racism or not. It has been about the extent to which racism affects them directly and experientially, and the extent to which racism limits their opportunity to strive.

Some people in the West find it difficult to conceive of this, but the reality is that even brown people who live in their own countries, under their own government, are affected by racism. Such assertions, as is now the case for any dissenting assertions even backed by forensic evidence, are often dismissed as ‘conspiracy theories.’ Nonetheless, in order to understand how this is possible, it is important to understand that in today’s world order, years after colonization, most brown countries in Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and Asia, are still not free. Sure, these countries are recognized as independent administrative entities, with their own flags, national anthems, and emblems, but in reality, western powers still exercise a tremendous amount of hegemonic political, economic, and cultural power on them.

Recent history around the world has shown that brown leaders who try to defy the status quo and defend the interest of their own people at the expense of western hegemony, do not last long. In order to survive in their positions, most brown leaders have to make political and economic choices that are not favorable to their nation. Although most of the time, leaders in brown countries are quite happy to become stooges of the West, pledge allegiance to their western overlords, and enjoy the monetary benefits that come with that allegiance – often at the expense of their own nation, just like the African chieftains who used to sell fellow Africans into slavery.

In such subservient brown countries, discord often grows between the state and the citizens, repression intensifies, and the leaders find themselves increasingly isolated and paranoid of their own people. The leaders then start trusting and favoring only people from their closest circle, as well as foreigners, more than all other locals. Soon in this process, all significant opportunities in business, in government, and especially the security and intelligence branches of government, become the preserve of a small, predatory clique with foreign and carefully selected local elements. Of course, the various aspects of this scenario play out differently from brown country to brown country, but the general outcome is usually the same; frustration, limited opportunities, and second-class citizenship for the local brown people, in their own country.

For brown people living in the West, the situation is also not ideal, albeit for different reasons. The list of day-to-day racism related life challenges brown people face in western countries is just too long to enumerate here. The worst such challenges such as police brutality, discrimination in the workplace, and the ghettoization of brown communities have been rampant in the West, and have once again become prominent through the rise of the Black Lives Matter movement. In the same vein as the civil rights movement of the 1960s, these recent developments have the merit of exposing the pain and hardships brown people in the West have been experiencing for decades. Huge protests are erupting to demand the downing of statues depicting historical ‘white racist’ figures, to demand that people kneel as a sign of outrage to the George Floyd killing, to demand reparations for the ill treatment brown peoples have endured in the past. Brown peoples’ tempers and frustrations are once again reaching boiling point in front of western oppression and injustice. However, to many well-intended observers, the types of demands brown people in the West are making to correct the situation and hopefully crush the scourge of racism seem superficial, ineffective, and perhaps even naive.

In order to defeat something as entrenched and deep as racism, a different premise might be needed. Perhaps each side of the racism issue, the western, white dominant side, and the global south, brown subjugated side, needs to re-examine its own frame of reference?

Today, as in teacher d’Assumption’s time in the 1930s, modern western civilization remains dominant and continues to exercise disproportionate power on the world; with each of the leading western countries exercising strong influence on specific ‘brown’ regions – the US in Latin America, Eastern Europe, and parts of the Middle East, the UK in Africa, Asia, and other parts of the Middle East, France mainly in its former African territories. That power is still derived from the West’s advances in technology, applied in various, more sophisticated fields of control; be it in surveillance and intelligence (via military satellites and cyber-tracking technology), subversive regime change methods (via color revolutions, co-opted local protests, or mainstream media ‘manufactured consent’ and leader-demonization campaigns), or good old, albeit more targeted, military operations (via drones, bombing campaigns, inter-ballistic missiles, or special ops interventions). On the economic front, the enactment of sanctions on brown countries that do not ‘toe the line’ has been a widely-used tool in recent years; with a flip side to this approach being the granting of western currency-denominated loans, with monies ‘created-out-of-thin-air’ and lent by western Treasury Ministries (or DFIs) to brown countries to ensure debt-driven ‘loyalty.’ On the political side, in a context of outward democracy since the 1980s, the use of data analytics and social media has been used to foster favorable, or at least non western-interest-threatening, electoral outcomes.

In light of all this, a modern-day teacher d’Assumption would say, “whites send satellites into space, blacks can’t make a bicycle. Whites are civilized. Blacks are savages.” The ‘satellites’ versus ‘bicycle’ part of that statement may be partly true, but it also infers important presumptions and omissions that should be brought to light and honored. As for the ‘civilized’ versus ‘savages’ part, it is a plain fallacy that should be exposed as such.

The presumption many westerners have about their technological superiority is that it came about exclusively from the brilliance and higher intellectual order of the white race. In reality, technological advancements truly surfaced in the 1500s in the European West, a period many would consider quite late in the historical process.

Ancient Greece, from which the modern western European civilization is thought to have emerged, learned extensively from ancient Egypt. Ancient Greece scholars in the fields of mathematics, philosophy, and medicine, learned from the ancient Egyptians. In other words, the way today’s scientists and technologists travel to Europe and the US to gain knowledge, is the same way ancient Greeks would travel to Egypt to gain knowledge. The great ’embarrassment’ western tradition has tried to keep under wraps for centuries, has tried to ‘deflate’ through Hollywood misrepresentation, has fought in bad faith in the academic arena, is that the ancient Egyptians were black, and were the real ancestors of modern day Africans, from across the continent and in the diaspora. Today’s core Egyptian population comes from a mix between different successions of historically newcomers to Egypt; notably Turks and Arabs. In the ancient world, black people from Egypt, who became ‘browner’ during the later Pharaonic dynasties after centuries of conquests and ‘métissage/mixing’ with lighter conquered people (we’re seeing the reverse today), dominated the world. This question should be finally settled and taught. Not out of pride to claim some ancient glory, but for humanity to learn and reflect on the lessons of the past, without falsifying the past.

‘Western’ mathematics and in particular algebra, without which modern technology would not have come about, were initiated by the Persians and later developed by the Arabs. To understand the importance of just this contribution, one should just try and write, never mind calculate, 10,354 x 726 in Roman numbers! This fact although it is more widely known and better accepted than the ‘ancient Egypt was black’ cover up, has also been largely ignored and set aside by the modern West. Once again, perpetuating the idea that white western ingenuity solely deserves the credit for the technical advances humanity now enjoys in the modern world, is a criminal cover-up that impairs progress in the racism discussion.

In any case, and perhaps from a more philosophical perspective, scientific and technological advancement should not be boasted over for as long as it hasn’t resolved the ultimate human aspiration, which is the avoidance of death. In our modern times, the dominant West should reflect upon the true extent of its power. As a spiritual leader once declared in the course of an argument with a western materialist, during which the latter was marveling at the supremacy of rationale epistemology, technology and science, “if you’re so smart, don’t die!” It might thus be helpful for today’s dominant group who prides itself for the preeminence of its technology, and thus for the preeminence of its power, to reflect on the reality that despite these advances, despite a particular group living in better material conditions than others, the finality of all humans on this earth has remained the same. It is also perhaps the reason why the ancient Egyptians were so obsessed with immortality; the ultimate frontier of their power. To this day, that frontier has not been reached.

When it comes to the notion that having greater mastery of technology makes a particular group more ‘civilized’ than another, despite the many lessons we have from History on this assertion, most of today’s dominant West appears to not have taken heed. Just looking at recent history, one could reflect on how in the first few months of WW2, the Wehrmacht conquered Europe through its ‘blitzkrieg/lightning war’ and superior military technology. Did those accomplishments make the Third Reich more ‘civilized’ than the rest of Europe? Why then carry this contention that dominance over brown people all over the world by means of higher technology, and thus power, makes one more ‘civilized?’ On the moral and civilizational spectrum, justice administered with crude weaponry will forever remain higher than injustice committed with ballistic missiles and drones.

After all, power, then and now, whatever its source and whatever its form, when it is exercised unjustly for the sake of a few, rather than justly for the sake of many, has a name: it is called tyranny.

On the brown side of the discussion, the re-framing might begin with a sharper sense of reality.

Despite proclamations to the contrary and an urge to lecture the world about freedom, democracy, equality for all, modern western civilization does not practice what it preaches. It likes to act as the victim when it is the aggressor. It co-opts a mainstream press compromised by special corporate and ideological interests. It supports brutal regimes that do its bidding and decries legitimate other regimes that defy the current order. It establishes states through genocide of indigenous populations, tolerates discrimination against second-class minority groups, talks about liberty but expects everyone to conform to western cultural norms. Yet, many brown people the world over, perhaps as a coping mechanism, pretend not to see the huge gap between the outward western assertions on freedom, liberty, and justice, and the inward reality of western power.

Once brown people realize that the modern western world order does function on the basis of quasi- imperial power dynamics with a dominant group and a subjugated group, they might also realize that progress will not happen on the racism question for as long as the technological gap between the parties does not subside. The reason for that comes from the other reality that the opposite of racism is mutual respect. If the West sees itself better than others because of its technological advances and the power that derives from it, while others seem incapable of matching western technology but aspire to the same living standards that this technology provides, there can be no mutual respect. The process of acquiring one’s own technology is essential not just to earn respect, but also to earn one’s real freedom. It is also an endeavor that is hard, complicated, onerous, and at times extremely dangerous. Brown people, just like other non-western Europeans have done, should consider this reality in their re-framing of the racism issue.

Between 1941 and 1945, the Allies, despite adhering to different political ideologies, worked together in order to defeat Nazism and had to catch up with German military technology as a matter of survival; it was an extremely arduous process. In the post-war era, being prevented from political and military autonomy, a humiliated and damaged Japan decided to catch up with western consumer technologies; it was also an extremely arduous process. Today, China is following and perhaps surpassing Japan’s footsteps on not just consumer, but on all commercial technologies. While post-Soviet/post-1990s Russia is doing the same on the military front. None of these countries were given a free pass to ‘catch up’! Nor did they waste time adding insult to injury by turning to others in plea for help and apologies. Brown people then, must learn those lessons and take heed.

A journalist once asked an African father-of-independence leader “what was,” in his view “the worst thing that can happen to a human being?” The old man paused for a short while, and then replied, “losing one’s dignity!”

Being poor and over-powered is not a degrading state to be in and of itself; most peoples at some point in their history have experienced that. However, looking for sympathy and apologies for one’s misfortune, expecting others to relinquish power and provide for one, being unwilling to make sacrifices in order to uplift oneself, is degrading and makes one the laughing stock of the world. In order to regain some respect that will help close the gap in the racism discussion, brown people and leaders in brown countries must make all necessary efforts to ‘catch up’ and regain some dignity. Brown people who pretend not to care for the benefits of modern life tend not to be very genuine and thus not deserving of respect. Brown people who are not prepared to make the efforts and sacrifices needed to ‘catch up,’ but are so keen to flock in and emulate institutions built by others instead of building their own, are also not deserving of respect. Then brown people who do manage to regain some level of power, and who in turn, for the sake of correcting past injustices, themselves become unjust, perpetrate the downward cycle of racism.

Perhaps, through this reframing of the racism issue, primary schoolteachers the world over will one day begin the day with a different statement?

“Satellites, locomotives and bicycles are the result of human ingenuity over the ages. They make our daily lives better and they can be a source of great power. However, these technological and material achievements, however great they maybe, should not make us arrogant or make us think ourselves better than those who have not reached them. They should become a means to bring justice and peace to the entire world.”

  1. Note: my father’s primary school teacher at the Lycée Faidherbe in 1930s St Louis, Senegal. 

The Anti-Trump Regime Change Sequence Is Worthwhile Studying

By Andrew Korybko

Source

It’s worthwhile studying the sequence of regime change events leading to the recent overt attempt to anti-democratically topple the incumbent President of the United States through superficially “democratic” means since obtaining a better understanding of how this plot played out can help in preemptively identifying and subsequently thwarting similar such attempts elsewhere in the world before they reach that stage.

Does Anyone Even Fully Understand What’s Happening?

I wrote on Wednesday that “Every Democrat Is A Wannabe Dictator”, but many of these potential tyrants don’t even fully understand the dynamics of the regime change process that they’re supporting. Nor, for that matter, do many of those who patriots and principled observers abroad who oppose it understand it all that much either. They just hold their respective positions because it’s either in their political interests to do so like the supporters do, or it’s against their own and/or conflicts with their principles. In any case, it’s worthwhile enlightening everyone by sharing a simplified sequence of events explaining how this unprecedented regime change process unfolded over the past four years. The resultant insight will hopefully enable others to preemptively identify similar regime change schemes when they’re only in their incipient phases, thus allowing the responsible authorities to potentially take action to thwart them before they reach their final stage.

The Seeds Of The Scheme

The seeds of this scheme were planted several months prior to the 2016 election when Hillary Clinton authorized a smear campaign against Trump alleging that he’s secretly a “Russian agent”. It was hoped that this would discredit the race’s frontrunner and thus result in handing her the presidency that November. This eventually morph into the discredited “Steele dossier” and the subsequent Russiagate conspiracy theory. The purpose of these information warfare provocations was to delegitimize Trump’s election, insincerely present the Democrats as the guardians of America’s electoral integrity, and therefore powerfully shape public perceptions ahead of the 2020 election. During the interim, a related narrative was weaponized claiming that Trump is a corrupt lawbreaker and wannabe dictator who’ll cling to power at all costs.

The Democrats’ Preemptive Deflection Of Suspicion

The intention behind that claim was to precondition the public into expecting that Trump would resort to an illegal power grab if he lost the election fair and square, the latter scenario of which people were made to believe since the Democrats spent four years insincerely portraying themselves as the guardians of America’s electoral integrity via their now-debunked Russiagate and Ukrainegate crusades. All of this was meant to preemptively deflect any suspicions that they were preparing to carry out what’s arguably the largest electoral fraud in American history, though the means through which they planned to do so unexpectedly changed as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic which presented an entirely new opportunity for them. That was the prospect of a massive influx of mail-in ballots into an electoral system that obviously wasn’t prepared for it.

The Political Exploitation Of The COVID-19 Pandemic

Like I wrote in my recent analysis about how “The Connection Between World War C & Psychological Processes Is Seriously Concerning”, COVID-19 is indeed real and definitely dangerous for at-risk members of the population, but it’s also been unquestionably exploited for political ends as evidenced by the double standards that Democrat governors applied towards the lockdown. If they really thought that COVID-19 was as deadly for the vast majority of the population as some experts have said that it is, then they wouldn’t have risked the massive culling of their electorate by encouraging them to wantonly burn, loot, riot, and even murder in rare instances all across their states’ major cities under the banner of Antifa and “Black Lives Matter” (BLM). This kinetic phase of the decades-long Hybrid War of Terror on America was meant to intimidate average Americans.

Red Wave” vs. “Blue Wave”

Just as importantly, however, their selective enforcement of draconian lockdown decrees against people of a different political persuasion (i.e. Trump supporters) was an ill-convincing effort to keep up the charade that mail-in voting was necessary in order to “save lives from COVID”. Few truly believe that this is the case since the Democrats’ visible double standards prove that the pandemic has been completely politicized for the purpose of justifying a massive influx of mail-in ballots into an electoral system totally unprepared to handle it. This set the stage for the Democrats to craftily predict over the summer that the winner might not be known on election day and to disregard any initial signs of a “red wave” pointing to Trump’s re-election since people were misled to believe that a “blue wave” will inevitably follow to crush it.

Connecting The Dots

This was extremely sneaky from the perception management perspective because it preemptively served to cover their tracks among average voters who might otherwise immediately suspect fraud in that scenario. Coupled with the prior narrative that Trump is a corrupt lawbreaker and wannabe dictator who’ll cling to power at all costs, the impression was shaped in many minds that any condemnation of this course of events by Trump would supposedly be indicative of him — not the Democrats — endeavoring to commit fraud. Had it not been for COVID-19 and the Democrats’ subsequent politicization thereof for the purpose of justifying ~100 million mail-in ballots, then their preplanned effort to defraud the vote might not have been as successful or convincing. Even so, their visible double standards in response to the lockdown made many people question their motives.

Big Tech Censorship

So many are suspicious of what happened, in fact, that the Democrats’ Big Tech allies went on a censorship spree the day after the election to block accounts and pages that encouraged concerned Americans to peacefully express their first amendment right to the freedom of assembly by staging law-abiding rallies in Trump’s support. As a case in point, OneWorld was deplatformed within hours of me sharing my article about how “It’s Time To Employ ‘Democratic Security’ Strategies To #StopTheSteal” for suggesting exactly that, which speaks to the powerful role that social media companies played in the lead-up to and subsequent aftermath of the election. Not only did they suppress practically all reporting of the Hunter Biden corruption scandal (which also seems to implicate Joe Biden), but they’re now actively suppressing Americans’ freedom of assembly.

The Unholy Trinity”

This wasn’t coincidental either but the result of Big Tech’s alliance with the Democrats and their anti-Trump patrons in the US’ permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”). All three of them literally conspired with one another to manipulate Americans’ perceptions of both the incumbent candidate and the electoral process. In addition, this “unholy trinity” also fully supports the half-year-long spree of urban terrorism unleashed by their de-facto street militias of Antifa and BLM in response to their political exploitation of the George Floyd incident. It’s unclear, just like with mail-in ballots, whether this stage of the Hybrid War would have gone active had it not been for that event which was as unexpected as COVID-19 was, but in any case, both were politicized to the extreme for the earlier mentioned regime change purposes.

Everything Went According To Plan

On election night, everything went off without a hitch from their perspective. Trump’s “red wave” crashed into most battleground states but was then pushed back by the “blue wave” supposedly resulting from the millions of mail-in ballots that the mainstream media wants everyone to believe were almost entirely for Biden. Not only is so statistically unlikely as to practically be impossible, but it also followed a suspicious suspension of the ballot count for at least several hours in the election-deciding states that had yet to declare a winner. As expected, Trump condemned this blatant fraud, thus conforming to the role of a corrupt lawbreaker and wannabe dictator who will stop at nothing to cling to power like many were preconditioned to wrongly believe. Even if Trump somehow pulls off a legal victory and ends up winning the race, his legitimacy is now in dispute.

The Democrats’ “Worst-Case” Scenario

In the Democrats’ “worst-case” scenario, they’d simply intensify their now-kinetic Hybrid War of Terror on America by encouraging their de-facto street militias of Antifa and BLM to wage a more sophisticated campaign of urban terrorism on the pretext of it supposedly being “legitimate antifascist resistance to a racist dictator who illegally stole the election”. It shouldn’t be forgotten that similar terrorist campaigns were launched against Syrian President Assad and former Libyan leader Gaddafi under almost identical “pro-democracy” pretexts, which testifies to the fact that what’s already happening in America nowadays as well as what’s poised to follow in the Democrats’ “worst-case” scenario of having their voter fraud attempt overturned (perhaps at the Supreme Court level) has the “deep state’s” fingerprints all over it.

Concluding Thoughts

The sequence of events which culminated in the ongoing superficially “democratic” coup attempt is very complex and also involves much more than what was simplified in this analysis, though the present piece highlights the most important trends that everyone should pay attention to. The outcome of this unprecedented struggle for leadership of the fading unipolar superpower is still uncertain since this is completely uncharted territory for the country. Nevertheless, understanding how everything got to this point might help others identify similar patterns ahead of time so that they can be snuffed out in their infancy before maturing into the anti-democratic disaster that’s facing America today. Seeing as how the US is the global trendsetter, it can thus be expected that this regime change method might eventually be employed elsewhere across the world with time.

South Africa – The State/Ruling Class as predator and citizens as prey

South Africa – The State/Ruling Class as predator and citizens as prey
Protea cynaroides, the king protea, is a flowering plant. It is a distinctive member of Protea, having the largest flower head in the genus. The species is also known as giant protea, honeypot, or king sugar bush. It is widely distributed in the southwestern and southern parts of South Africa in the fynbos region.

November 02, 2020

by a South African writer for the Saker Blog

What is the The ‘Why’ of this writing?  Because, for the US, some of you may be the proverbial ‘white South Africans’ now.

We can assume that BLM, Antifa, and similar groupings, particularly in the US, are inventions by factions of the ruling class elites. Initially, it looked perhaps as simple as a garden variety color revolution, to divert attention from the collapsing economy and a possible unprecedented human catastrophe that will follow after the election. The initial plan involved shifting public attention to divisive racial issues, sometimes created for the cause specifically, like institutional racism. It put working people at each other’s throats while concealing the vicious class war that is behind the shield of a fake social justice movement. Now, seemingly, they are just breaking everything down and are intent on changing the United States into some kind of imagined utopia, that perhaps they cannot even define.

Well, it is almost as if these movements were trained in South Africa for this specific purpose. We have certainly seen the same and similar tactics over our past 25+ years under the ‘benevolent rule’ of a bunch of violent pretend Marxists.

A few, I Told You So’s from South Africa :

(No, this is not schadenfreude. I took the idea from one of Andre Vltchek’s (RIP)  last writings:) Now West should sit on its backside, shut up and listen to “the others”

At first glance, it would seem that I’m shooting myself in the foot by posting this piece of Andre Vltchek where he analyses the white supremacy of the west. What he is describing, is exactly the same attitude that the west took when it finally killed South Africa with sanctions and supported low-level war over basically the whole of the south of the African continent. The ‘know better exceptional cadre’ did their harm, although internally in the country the crimes and unfairness of an apartheid regime were already being attended to. We already knew separate development would not make it as a policy. But the west knows best and they will sanction and finagle in the background. Perhaps you do not know of the finagling. Gold for Play was the deal with the neo-Chiefs. You give us gold, we can make you play in the new South Africa.

Of course, in South Africa, the white minority is “the others”, which is not exactly what Vltchek intended. That is what makes the situation different and is why so many do not get their heads wrapped around the South African issue.

You know who else ‘told you so’. Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa, from Ilana Mercer told you so. But hey, you cannot possibly take lessons from a White South African author and a Jewess to boot, can you? (Yes, yes, I know the word Jewess causes upheaval. Female Jew sounds even worse).

I told you that the race issue is fake. Don’t you hear this around you? Institutional Racism, they say. Are you an institutional racist? Compared with South Africa during the apartheid era, you have no institutional racism. Sneaky underhanded hidden cruel racism yes, but not institutionalized as we had it, and now have it on steroids and written in the law, against the minority whites in South Africa.

I told you that the current ruling classes are fake Marxists. You only have to read Ramin Mazaheri on this site to understand what fake Marxists are. A sorry lot of BLM’s and co in the US are all fake Marxists, as is the sorry lot of ANC cadres that are pretending to lead South Africa but only leaves wrack and ruin in their wake.

I told you that they are killing whites for being white. What are your Antifas and BLM’s doing now? Are they not wanting you to apologize and shamed for simply being born white?

I told you that they are visiting the sins of the fathers upon the children. Reparations for slavery ringing any bells?

I told you that, in the case of South Africa specifically there was no genocide of black South Africans by Boers – ever – yet, the white South Africans are still portrayed as vicious racists. Like Vlchec says: listen to “the others”, and in South Africa, the whites are “the others”

I told you that they are capturing the state and stealing everything that is nailed down and not nailed down. The corollary with the US is the burning of good buildings and real estate and the creation of opportunity zones so that the ruling elites can pick up those areas for pennies. At least in the US, they want to pay a bit for this real estate. In South Africa, they want to take it without compensation.

I told you that there are racist laws on the books, created to suppress whites. BEE. The corollary in the US is taking a knee, subjecting yourself to a standard, set for you, perhaps not a sane standard, as a solidarity movement for the fake Marxists.

And the old canard, said in an accusatory tone: ‘If you are not happy, why don’t you just go back where you came from?’ I told you that no, the whites cannot just leave. Can you just up and leave your country now? Do you have the right of return to your initial European country? Do you even have ancestry left there? I’m sure not. The first pilgrims arrived in the US in 1620. The first rounding of the Cape of Storms or Cape of Good Hope and the first European to reach the Cape was the Portuguese explorer Bartolomeu Dias in 1488. The first arrivals to build a victualing station at the Cape of Good Hope was in 1652. No, we are not Europeans, we are white Africans with a distinct and unique language and civilization.

I told you that the white supremacists are trying to ride on the situation to prove their own point. The corollary in the US is hiding their white supremacy under a moral equivalency, i.e., if they are so bad, we must be so good.

So without much more ado, let’s look at a few still hot incidents in South Africa. I have no doubt that you will soon see similes or corollaries come down the pike in your US neck of the woods.

There was a straw that broke the camel’s back of the white South African population. There is no more reasoning left, for this population. This straw was the brutal murder, and some are now calling it an assassination, of young farmer Brendin Horner in a farming area called Senekal. Some ‘guilty’ was found and brought to court but were they really the ‘guilty’?

We are not a people that protest out in the streets. It is not a thing for us. I told you in one of the previous pieces of a worker’s strike, which was the first mainly white worker’s strike that I saw in all my life. We don’t do these things: we discuss, we talk, we make recommendations, we write, we make speeches, we give proposals, we lobby government, but evidently pushed too far, we too will protest. So, when the first court case started, the farmers protested outside of the court. Some violence took place, a police vehicle was overturned, and eventually fire put to it. It was speeding toward peaceful (truly peaceful, not BLM style peaceful) protesting farmers, and dropping some kind of tear gas is what we understand.  For this incident, some farmers were arrested and charged with terrorism. Can you believe it?. Mayhem is not our way – and we don’t burn things in protest as we know the incredible danger of fire in rural farming areas.

It soon became clear why a police vehicle was overturned. As I understand now detailed reporting implicates fully the local police and the police Chiefs in a local stock theft syndicate and Brendin Horner investigated this. Was it a ‘normal violent farm killing’, or was it an assassination? Some heads of police departments suddenly had plenty new livestock. The police and the stock thieves worked together in a livestock theft ring to, of course, steal their new livestock from whitey.

This story is very much abbreviated and much more complicated with counter-protests by the Economic Freedom Fighters but what is clear is that this is the straw that broke the camel’s back after + 25 years of ANC government and white minority suppression on every level of society.

The white community evidently is not allowed to protest and the farmers were soon brutally punished for their protests. The cry went out, in public, this is not a secret, we know who it is, we know which party he leads as he bellowed: Burn Them! Burn their lands! Soon the farms were burning in a terrible scorched earth policy. Sure, that was written off to a little municipal protest. Yes sure, why did you then not burn down the municipal building?

The towns so far hit by these acts of terrorism are Hoopstad, Hertzogville, Boshof, and Dealesville, food basket farming country, but the fear is that this might only be the beginning of an organized onslaught. An excess of 100,000 hectares of farmland has been destroyed at the time of this report, with millions in damage. But there were other victims. Some farmers, hearing the terrible cries of their animals and livestock as the animals were burning to death, and not able to withstand or face this, simply shot themselves.

Is there a corollary with the knee on the neck killing of George Floyd in the US? The corollary is that it was a straw that started the unrest in the US. This killing of Brendin Horner is the straw that broke any supportive feelings of the white minority community in South Africa toward Nelson Mandela’s ‘rainbow nation’.

During Covid lockdown, the government was just too kind and distributed food parcels. Evidently, the whites don’t eat, because no food parcel reached any white person really. The distribution trucks drove past even if the community stood waiting for them.  If a whitey got hold of a distributed food parcel, this was grabbed out of their hands and basically confiscated. The whites were also physically blocked from reaching distribution points. Yes, food parcels were handed to black communities only. Was this only incompetence? I wish it was. What the smaller farmers then did, was to start a food supply protest and only supply the white community with fresh food. And now, after their farms are burnt, there is no food to protest with. The white community is now supporting the white community. What do you think is going to happen when hunger truly sets in among those who burnt the farms?  Planting time is over.  So, they arrested 17, but let me ask the question again. Were those the real perpetrators, or are the perpetrators the high government officials on State level that bellow: Burn them, Burn their lands?

Whites evidently don’t need to work or earn a wage these days. There is a staff reduction at a large company, Barloworld. (Covid related). Do you know who is being reduced? Whites. There is no secret here as it is a formal policy.

Willie Venter, deputy general secretary of the Metal & Engineering Industry at Solidarity said “We are extremely disappointed with the unfair way in which Barloworld handled the process. The fact that they have now laid off more workers on the basis of skin colour further aggravates the already malicious undertones of the consultation process,”

“We cannot allow the state’s ideologies to become the norm within the private sector. Race played a pertinent role in the retrenchment criteria of Barloworld, and that cannot be tolerated.”

This case is now in court and the judge admitted: “We already have systemic and institutionalized racism against the small white community in South Africa, with discrimination on the basis of skin color in each and every facet of South African society. Barloworld is taking the lead in this systemic racism by taking advantage of these institutional racist laws to implement retrenchments based on race – the white race that is. But why? What is the goal? Black Supremacy? Black Monopoly Capital? Hatred?”

The straw that broke the camel’s back is now beginning to take its toll. There is no way out now. Civil war or a new homeland. We are a peaceful people without a real hunger for war. The last time we went to war, we whipped British butt, until they put our women and children in concentration camps. More violence for the sake of violence will be flowing from these events in the short term. The Murder of a white person is actively encouraged by state sources, the more brutal, the better.   Theft from a white person is encouraged by state sources. This is not a secret any longer.

Movements toward ethnic homelands are now attracting real attention and are strengthening. There are a few of these and perhaps they will now all coalesce.

I can hear the comments. Why not deal through the BRICS? Who do you think gets selected for BRICS delegates? Nobody gives a damn.

Afriforum has made what seems to be some progress in their #theworldmustknow outreach.

“The civil rights organization AfriForum has just received confirmation that the organization is now officially registered with the United Nations (UN) as a nongovernmental organization with special consultative status. This status offers AfriForum various opportunities and privileges to continue its work on a much larger scale in the UN’s conference rooms. The breakthrough was made despite the South African government working actively for many years to deprive AfriForum of these opportunities.”

I speak for my group but it must be understood that the other groups in South Africa are under similar stress. The fact that I don’t speak for them, does not mean that I do not recognize the overall situation of despair. When a state becomes the perpetrator and loses sight of its main purpose of protection and well-being of its citizens, those very self-same citizens become the target of such a state. In a fruitless belief that one is not the target of your own government, because you are not told why the country is suffering, it is easy (but also pathologically resentful) to seek and place blame on the whites and as it were, burn them, because conceptually they must be at fault.  It is even worse when the State gives a false representation of why the country is suffering and in the case of South Africa, this ‘why’ question is answered by a small phrase:  It Is That Whiteness!

Now seemingly the Chinese have decided to close down their wallet as the graft and corruption of State Officials of the neo-ruling class are open and in your face. State looting became even more evident during the procurement of the necessities for Covid. The looting was so evident, that those clever ministers and high government officials of the day are asking for amnesty for their looting, I kid you not. ‘Sorry for the stealing of governmental Covid resources which was for the people, we will never do it again’, of course, they do not return one penny, and decades of opportunity for rebuilding has been lost in South Africa. Is it any wonder that seemingly the Chinese have closed the purse?

But hey! The ruling South African government did not miss a beat and simply turned around and accepted a 4+billion dollar IMF loan. How very deeply corrupt can one actually be, pleading amnesty for wholesale government graft and corruption on one hand (even before charged) but quickly sell yourself to the IMF on the other hand, as long as the good times and the big money roll?.

What do you want me to say? ‘I told you so’ is getting so old.

Pretend Marxist Neo-Chiefs Practice Destructive Capitalism, or

Dispossession of land on the basis of race – a State Enrichment and Control Strategy in the South African Context

Now that the money bag mechanisms of the dead empire of the west are again rewarding those that are killing and targeting their own people, do you really think I’m saying “I told you so” in a manner of schadenfreude? No, but it would be good if you recognize that we have a joint enemy. (But please please, do not send Pompeo to help, or anyone else really! The IMF was enough. We will be enjoying further deprivations resulting from the west’s Great Reset Plan. But, if you happen to have a country lying empty somewhere, let us know.)

This link has the story and a book review on sheer graft. What makes it sad, is that this graft even breaks apart the natural resources of a once very beautiful country.

William Saunderson-Meyer writes on a new book by Rehana Rossouw on David Mabuza’s Mpumalanga 

Usually, at the end of an article about South Africa, I try to find something good: a piece of music, a local color story, a description of culture .. just something upbeat because the story invariably is sad. Sorry to disappoint this time. Today I leave you with the hashtag, #theworldmustknow, and with a young King Protea.  This one will grow up and open up to be as big as a dinner plate.

هل الثورة مقبلة إلى الولايات المتحدة؟ المقارنة مع روسيا

زياد حافظ

في سلسلة من المقالات والأبحاث المعمّقة أشرنا إلى تعاظم الاحتمال لانهيار داخلي في الولايات المتحدة. تسارع الأحداث في شوارع المدن الأميركية والانفلات الإعلامي في الفضاء السياسي والفوضى في الحوار التصادمي بين مكوّنات المجتمع الأميركي، فكلّ ذلك ينذر بأنّ شيئاً ما سيحدث قريباً. في مقال مثير للباحثة هيلين اندروز على موقع «الأميركان كونسرفاتيف» (الأميركي المحافظ) كتبت في مطلع هذا الشهر أنّ المناخ السائد في الولايات المتحدة يشبه المناخ الروسي سنة 1917. أن يصدر كلام من هذا النوع في الولايات المتحدة أمر لافت للنظر ولكن أن يصدر من موقع محافظ فهو دليل على خطورة الوضع الداخلي.

اعتبرت الباحثة انّ عام 2020 عام التدحرج نحو مناخات 1917 ذلك رغم الإنذارات المتكرّرة منذ الستينات في القرن الماضي والتي شهدت أعمال عنف وتمرّداً من قبل الشباب. لكن تلك الإنذارات لم تترجم إلى عمل يقود إلى الثورة ما جعل النخب ترتاح أن «الثورة» لن تحدث في بلد كالولايات المتحدة. لكن ما يحدث اليوم قد يكون مختلفاً عما حدث في الستينات من حركات احتجاجية لم تؤدّ إلى التغيير المطلوب آنذاك. وتسترسل الباحثة في سرد المناخ القائم في 1917 في روسيا مع ما يحدث اليوم في الولايات المتحدة. لكن «الثورة» المقبلة قد تكون مختلفة عن الثورات في العالم التي تريد التغيير. فهي «ثورة» تريد تثبيت الأمر الواقع وتقوم بحركة مناهضة لأيّ تغيير!

فحركة المقاومة في الولايات المتحدة (نعم هناك حركة اسمها المقاومة تهدف إلى خلع الرئيس الأميركي) تقول بوضوح إنها لن تقبل إعادة انتخاب ترامب في 2020 كما رفضتها في 2016. فالرئيس الأميركي كان ظاهرة تتمرّد على التوازنات القائمة وبالتالي حاولت تلك «المقاومة» الإطاحة بترامب عبر فضيحة «روسيا غيت» أيّ التدخل الروسي المزعوم في الانتخابات سنة 2016. ويعتبر الكاتب والأستاذ الجامعي مايكل ريكتنوالد أنّ الجبهة العريضة المعادية لترامب والتي تسعى الإطاحة به بأيّ وسيلة ممكنة مؤلّفة من ماكينة الحزب الديمقراطي، الديمقراطيين الأوفياء، المعادين لترامب من داخل الحزب الجمهوري تحت يافطة «أبداً لا لترامب» منهم من المحافظين الجدد كـ وليام كريستول ودوغلاس فيث، والدولة العميقة المؤلّفة من الجهاز البيروقراطي والمؤسسات الأمنية والمجمع العسكري الصناعي والمالي، ثم مجمل الإعلام الشركاتي المهيمن باستثناء بعض الجزر الصغيرة المستقلّة، وحركة «انتيفا»، وحركة «بي أل أم» (حياة السود مهمّة) المموّلة من الشركات الكبرى المالية والمعلوماتية على حدّ سواء. هذا التحالف يعيش وفقاً للكاتب في عالم موازي بعيداً عن هموم المواطنين الأميركيين العاديين ولا يريد التغيير. الاحتجاج ضدّ العنصرية «مقبول» من قبل الدولة العميقة طالما لا يمسّ بالمعادلات الاقتصادية والمالية القائمة.

وما يزيد من قلق المراقبين هو تباشير عن إمكانية تدخّل القوّات المسلّحة الأميركية حلبة الصراع القائم لصالح القوى المناهضة لترامب ما يزيد في وتيرة البارانويا في صفوف الجبهة الأخرى. ويعتبر الباحث أنّ تصريحات وزير الدفاع السابق في إدارة ترامب جون ماتيس حول ضرورة اقتلاع كلّ من لا يحترم الدستور تحذيراً لترامب. كما أنّ رئيس هيئة الأركان المشتركة انتقد الرئيس عندما أراد الأخير زجّ الجيش في قمع المظاهرات الاحتجاجية ضدّ العنصرية. ويُضاف إلى ذلك ضلوع مدير مكتب التحقيق الاتحادي السابق جيمس كومي في تبنّيه لملفّ مزوّر من أحد العاملين في وكالة الاستخبارات حول تورّط الرئيس الأميركي مع روسيا خلال الحملة فيضيف إلى مصداقية التهم التي يوجّهها ترامب وأنصاره إلى تواطؤ الأجهزة الأمنية في محاولات الإطاحة به. فالإيحاء بأنّ القوّات المسلّحة ومختلف الأجهزة الأمنية تنظر بعين الرضى لمشاريع الإطاحة بترامب جعلت المرشّحة السابقة هيلاري كلنتون تحثّ جوزيف بايدن على عدم القبول بالهزيمة فيما لو فاز ترامب في تشرين الثاني.

في المقابل يعمل أنصار ترامب، مع أنهم لا يحظون بتأييد الإعلام المهيمن، على نبش كلّ الفضائح التي تعود إلى المرشح بايدن ونجله هنتر. الاعلام المهيمن إما يتجاهل عمداً الاتهامات الموجّهة ضدّ فساد جوزيف بايدن ونجله أو يستحفّ بمصداقيتها. ونذكر أيضاً تصريحات وزير الخارجية مايك بومبيو حول عزمه لنشر الرسائل السرّية لهيلاري كلينتون تثبت تورّطها في فضائح عديدة وذلك خلال الأيام المقبلة قبل موعد الانتخابات. كما أنّ الحركات اليمينية المتطرّفة والعنصرية البيضاء تساهم في استمرار موجة الكراهية السائدة في البلاد. فالحقد والكراهية بين الفريقين المتنافسين يأخذ أبعاد خطرة للغاية حيث إمكانية التفاهم أصبحت شبه معدومة وأنّ الفصل قد يكون في الشارع.

أما الباحث الأميركي الذي يكتب تحت اسم جون كوينسي آدامز، وهو اسم مستعار للرئيس السادس للولايات المتحدة وهو ابن جون آدامز الرئيس الثاني وأحد مؤسّسي الدولة الأميركية، فيعتبر أنّ الولايات المتحدة «انتهت» كما كتب في مقال في موقع «استراتيجيك أند كلتشر فونداشين» (موقع مؤسسة الاسترتيجيا والثقافة) وذلك في 25 أيلول/ سبتمبر 2020. ويقيم مقارنة بين واقع الحال في الولايات المتحدة وواقع الحال في روسيا قيل عشرين سنة.

النقطة الأولى تعتبر أنّ من يتحكّم بالقرار في الولايات المتحدة الآن هي الاوليغارشية المالية التي لم تساهم في بناء الجسور والطرقات والمرافق العامة ومجمل البنى التحتية والقاعدة الصناعية والزراعية. بل هي مجموعة من مضاربين ماليين في معظمهم. في المقابل فإنّ الاوليغارشية التي لم تبن أيضاً أيّ شيء في روسيا بل استفادت من التفكك والفساد لبناء ثروات طائلة وتحكّمت بروسيا بعد تفكيك الاتحاد السوفياتي تضاءل نفوذها بشكل ملحوظ مع صعود الرئيس بوتين.

النقطة الثانية هي أنّ الثقة في الدولة تتزايد يوماً بعد يوم في روسيا بينما تتراجع بشكل سريع في الولايات المتحدة. معظم الروس يعتبرون السياسيين من اللصوص والنصّابين إلخ… في المقابل تشير استطلاعات الرأي العام في الولايات المتحدة ازدياد حالة القرف من السياسيين ومن الحكومة والدولة. فثقة الأميركيين بالدولة تراجعت بسبب عدم الشفافية (69 بالمائة) كما أنّ العلاقات والخطاب السياسي فقد الحدّ الأدنى من اللباقة والتهذيب (72 يالمائة).

النقطة الثالثة هي تراجع الكفاءة والقدرة العسكرية الأميركية بينما تتصاعد بشكل ملحوظ في روسيا. أشرنا في مقالات سابقة إلى عدم الجهوزية العسكرية الأميركية وذلك على لسان رئيس هيئة الأركان المشتركة وتقارير مراكز الأبحاث. كما أنّ الإخفاقات في الميدان ظهرت للجميع، سابقاً في فيتنام، وحالياً في أفغانستان والعراق. كما أنّ نوعية التسليح الروسي أفضل وأقلّ كلفة من التسليح الأميركي وخاصة في السلاح الكاسر للتوازن.

النقطة الرابعة هي أنّ الولايات تنفق الكثير على التسليح ومعظمه يذهب هدراً بينما روسيا أكثر ترشيداً ورشاقة في نفقاتها العسكرية. فروسيا تحرص على عدم تحويل وارداتها إلى التسلّح مستفيدة من تجربة الماضي في سباق التسلّح الذي أدّى إلى انهيار الاتحاد السوفياتي. التركيز هو على السلاح النوعي والأقلّ كلفة. لذلك نرى تزايد في الإنفاق العسكري الأميركي وتراجع في الإنفاق العسكري الروسي.

النقطة الخامسة هي أنّ كلّ من روسيا والولايات المتحدة تشهد تراجعاً ملحوظاً في معدّلات الولادة. فخلال العقد الماضي تراجع عدد السكان في روسيا بنسبة مليون بسبب انخفاض معدّلات الولادة وتزايد معدّلات الوفيات بسبب الكحول. وإذا استمرّت الحال فإنّ روسيا قد تخسر ثلث عدد سكّانها الـ 146 مليون في عام 2050. في المقابل فالولايات المتحدة تواجه تراجعاً في الولادة وتزايداً في الوفيات بسبب المخدّرات والإقبال على الانتحار. لكن الإحصاءات الأخيرة تشير إلى أنه تمّ تثبيت معدّلات الولادة في روسيا بينما عدد السكان في الولايات المتحدة يتراجع. وهنا تكمن المشكلة لأنّ الحلّ في تثبيت عدد السكّان لن يأتي إلاّ عبر الهجرة. والهجرة يعني تغييراً كبيراً في نسبة المكوّنات العرقية في الولايات المتحدة وما يرافق ذلك من تغيير في الثقافة والقيم والتي تصطدم مع الموجة العنصرية المتفشية في الولايات المتحدة.

كلّ ذلك يدّل على أنّ الوضع في روسيا أكثر استقرار مما هو عليه في الولايات المتحدة وأنّ الأخيرة في طريقها إلى الانهيار الداخلي إنْ لم تصحُ النخب على الواقع وتقوم بالإجراءات الجذرية اللازمة. لكن ما نشهده في هذه الأيام هو تأجيج متزايد نحو مواجهة في الداخل الأميركي خارج إطار المؤسسات بسبب موقف «المقاومة» للتغيير وموقف من يريد التغيير وإنْ لم تكن ملامح التغيير المطلوب واضحة. وهذا ما يزيد خطورة في الوضع لأنّ غياب هدف مشترك ينذر بالتفتّت والانشقاق.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ

*كاتب وباحث اقتصادي سياسي والأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربي

A Stroke of Genius

A Stroke of Genius

October 02, 2020

by Jimmie Moglia for the Saker Blog

It takes strength, endurance, resignation and stomach to like Donald Trump. Not for what he actually is. Under the pen of Alexandre Dumas, for example, Trump may even appear as a not-dislikable Yankee D’Artagnan of sorts. Maybe with less finesse than the original musketeer, whose contained yet French swaggering captivated millions of readers, when reading was still ‘cool’.

Rather for some infamous things Trump did and for some unspeakable people he has endorsed or surrounded himself with.

As for things evil, I’ll refer, for one, to the disgraceful delivery of the stolen Golan Heights to the Zionist entity – proving that before the Arabs’ complaints were to be finally dismissed, all remedy should be hopeless.

The other is the treatment and characterization of Venezuela. Some words, in time, are debased by vulgar application, and can be no longer heard without the involuntary recollection of unpleasing images. Such is the case of ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘socialism’ uttered by Trump and his minions.

This is no place for platitudes about socialism, but using ‘socialism’ as an excuse to strangle Venezuela is yet an atrocious misuse of language and thought. For it forces Venezuelans to see Americans as strangers to whom Venezuelan life is indifferent, or enemies, for whom Venezuelans’ deaths are desirable.

As for Trump’s associated detestable characters there is only the embarrassment of choice. Elliott Abrams, for one, the disgust of whom arises from the revival of images he is commonly associated with, notably the Nicaraguan ‘Contras’ campaign, for which he was actually tried and condemned as one who has committed a crime. In other words a criminal.

Besides, Abrams is the perfect live embodiment of the Merchant of Venice, seeing whom a protagonist in the play exclaims, “Here comes the devil, in the likeness of a (term and characterization avoided for they may be disturbing to some readers).”

On a related subject, I read recently that Jewish financiers and academics are developing artificial intelligence in order to ceaselessly scan the Internet for “hidden anti-Semitism on social media.”

The Times of Britain reports, “Workers on the “Decoding Anti-Semitism Project” will write algorithms to find codes such as “Juice” instead of “Jews” and look for anti-Jewish narratives, conspiracy theories and stereotypes that are harder to detect automatically than explicit racism. They hope to develop a tool that can scan websites and social media profiles for implicit anti-Semitism.”

A strange range of Jews and European crypto-academic characters staff this curious venture. The prize is several million euros in grants, donated by the German-Jewish Alfred Landecker Foundation, an NGO with strings that suggest both comedy and tragedy.

Who established the Alfred Landecker Foundation? The Reimann family, German billionaires who own controlling stakes in Krispy Kreme, Dr. Pepper and other major players in the goy-poisoning food-market. The Reimanns have pledged 250 million euros during the next 10 years.

The family is not Jewish, but was targeted for “reparations” by sundry Jewish “defense bodies.” It began last year when some influential Jewish journalists and organizations triggered an international public relations blackmail campaign against the Reimanns. For, apparently, there were some skeletons in the Reimanns’ National Socialist past.

Devra First, for example, a Jewish journalist at the Boston Globe, led one of the early attacks with an article titled, “I found out Nazi money is behind my favorite coffee. Should I keep drinking it?” It is easy to predict that she may not drink the coffee but keep the money.

As for the “Decoding Anti-Semitism Project,” given the massive Zionist successful fight against free speech, the reader can easily imagine and construe the consequences.

But I digress. Another obnoxious, despicable and ridicule character is the hyper-buffoon Juan Guaidó, whom most of my readers would not probably even trust to park their car – a veritable master at making a complete ass of himself worldwide. For example, by believing that two pranksters posing as the President of Switzerland and his interpreter asked his ‘permission’ to transfer Venezuelan government money held in Swizerland to Guaìdo’s personal Swiss bank account. And to whom Guaidó pledged his help in promoting a color revolution in the Russian Federation to replace Putin with Navalny.

But returning to Trump, we may set all of the above apart, when recognizing genius. For such I rate his having made himself recognized as Covid-19 positive (along with his wife). Even if he (and supposedly she) are asymptomatic and apparently in good health.

For, by doing so, he may avoid the traps inherent in the patently pitiful debates. He will equally avoid the violent (BLM, Antifa) predicted outbreaks associated with his public presence, and maybe even direct terrorist assaults.

Furthermore, he will be able to wage his electoral campaign from the White House, maybe in front of the fireplace (FD Roosevelt style). While his enemies will be inherently prevented from criticism of the venue and the reason thereof.

After all they vehemently maligned him for having been ‘soft’ on Covid. Therefore they cannot certainly expect him to violate the quarantine, risking to infect all he comes in contact with. And by appearing in TV in good health, he may actually and factually counterbalance the apocalyptic narratives of the mainstream media and associates.

Furthermore, his enemies cannot even utter the suspicion that he is simulating the malady. For if the suspicion arose that the ‘swabs’ can be a tool for manipulation, liable to yield unreliable or even purposely inaccurate answers, the whole construct would begin to creak.

Hence Trump, for once, has defeated his enemies by using their very tools.

All of the above does not change the reality that – even assuming no fraud in the elections, given the documented ease of deception without a user-registration system – the Americans will still be compelled to chose the lesser of two evils, commonly known as the evil of two lessers.

Are You Feeling Safer? ‘War of the Worlds’ Pits U.S. and Israel Against Everyone Else

By Philip Giraldi

Source

Trump Netanyahu Abraham Accords ee19e

The media being focused on an upcoming election, coronavirus, fires on the West Coast and burgeoning BLM and Antifa unrest, it is perhaps no surprise that some stories are not exactly making it through to the evening news. Last week an important vote in the United Nations General Assembly went heavily against the United States. It was regarding a non-binding resolution that sought to suspend all economic sanctions worldwide while the coronavirus cases continue to increase. It called for “intensified international cooperation and solidarity to contain, mitigate and overcome the pandemic and its consequences.” It was a humanitarian gesture to help overwhelmed governments and health care systems cope with the pandemic by having a free hand to import food and medicines.

The final tally was 169 to 2, with only Israel and the United States voting against. Both governments apparently viewed the U.N. resolution as problematical because they fully support the unilateral economic warfare that they have been waging to bring about regime change in countries like Iran, Syria and Venezuela. Sanctions imposed on those countries are designed to punish the people more than the governments in the expectation that there will be an uprising to bring about regime change. This, of course, has never actually happened as a consequence of sanctions and all that is really delivered is suffering. When they cast their ballots, some delegates at the U.N. might even have been recalling former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s claim that the death of 500,000 Iraqi children due to U.S. imposed sanctions had been “worth it.”

Clearly, a huge majority of the world’s governments, to include the closest U.S. allies, no longer buy the American big lie when it claims to be the leader of the free world, a promoter of liberal democracy and a force for good.  The vote prompted one observer, John Whitbeck, a former international lawyer based in Paris, to comment how “On almost every significant issue facing mankind and the planet, it is Israel and the United States against mankind and the planet.”

The United Nations was not the only venue where the U.S. was able to demonstrate what kind of nation it has become. Estimates of how many civilians have been killed directly or indirectly as a consequence of the so-called Global War on Terror initiated by George W. Bush are in the millions, with roughly 4 million being frequently cited. Nearly all of the dead have been Muslims. Now there is a new estimate of the number of civilians that have fled their homes as a result of the worldwide conflict initiated by Washington and its dwindling number of allies since 2001. The estimate comes from Brown University’s “Costs of War Project,” which has issued a report Creating Refugees: Displacement Caused by the United States Post-9/11 Wars that seeks to quantify those who have “fled their homes in the eight most violent wars the U.S. military has launched or participated in since 2001.”

The project tracks the number of refugees, asylum seekers applying for refugee status, and internally displaced people or persons (IDPs) in the countries that America and its allies have most targeted since 9/11: Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines, Libya and Syria. All are predominantly Muslim countries with the sole exception of the Philippines, which has a large Muslim minority.

The estimate suggests that between 37 and 59 million civilians have become displaced, with an extremely sharp increase occurring in the past year when the total was calculated to be 21 million. The largest number of those displaced were from Iraq, where fighting against Islamic State has been intermittent, estimated at 9.2 million. Syria, which has seen fighting between the government and various foreign supported insurgencies, had the second-highest number of displacements at 7.1 million. Afghanistan, which has seen a resurgent Taliban, was third having an estimated 5.3 million people displaced.

The authors of the report observe that even the lower figure of 37 million is “almost as large as the population of Canada” and “more than those displaced by any other war or disaster since at least the start of the 20th century with the sole exception of World War II.” And it is also important to note what is not included in the study. The report has excluded sub-Saharan Africa as well as several Arab nations generally considered to be U.S. allies. These constitute “the millions more who have been displaced by other post-9/11 conflicts where U.S. forces have been involved in ‘counterterror’ activities in more limited yet significant ways, including in: Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mali, Niger, Saudi Arabia, and Tunisia.”

Yemen should be added to that list given U.S. military materiel assistance that has enabled the Saudi Arabian bombing attacks on that country, also producing a wave of refugees. There are also reports that the White House is becoming concerned over the situation in Yemen as pressure is growing to initiate an international investigation of the Saudi war crimes in that civilian infrastructure targets to include hospitals and schools are being deliberately targeted.

And even the United States Congress has begun to notice that something bad is taking place as there is growing concern that both the Saudi and U.S. governments might be charged with war crimes over the civilian deaths. Reports are now suggesting that as early as 2016, when Barack Obama was still president, the State Department’s legal office concluded that “top American officials could be charged with war crimes for approving bomb sales to the Saudis and their partners” that have killed more than 125,000 including at least 13,400 targeted civilians.

That conclusion preceded the steps undertaken by the Donald Trump White House to make arms sales to the Saudis and their allies in the United Arab Emirates central to his foreign policy, a program that has become an integral part of the promotion of the “Deal of the Century” Israeli-Palestinian peace plan. Given that, current senior State Department officials have repressed the assessment made in 2016 and have also “gone to great lengths” to conceal the legal office finding. A State Department inspector general investigation earlier this year considered the Department’s failure to address the legal risks of selling offensive weapons to the Saudis, but the details were hidden by placing them in a classified part of the public report released in August, heavily redacted so that even Congressmen with high level access could not see them.

Democrats in Congress, which had previously blocked some arms sales in the conflict, are looking into the Saudi connection because it can do damage to Trump, but it would be far better if they were to look at what the United States and Israel have been up to more generally speaking. The U.S. benefits from the fact that even though international judges and tribunals are increasingly embracing the concept of holding Americans accountable for war crimes since the start of the GWOT, U.S. refusal to cooperate has been daunting. Last March, when the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague authorized its chief prosecutor to open an investigation into U.S. crimes in Afghanistan the White House reacted by imposing sanctions on the chief prosecutor and his staff lawyer. And Washington has also warned that any tribunal going after Israel will face the wrath of the United States.

Nevertheless, when you are on the losing side on a vote in a respected international body by 169 to 2 someone in Washington should at least be smart enough to discern that something is very, very wrong. But I wouldn’t count on anyone named Trump or Biden to work that out.

Reconsidering the Presidential Election

Reconsidering the Presidential Election

THE SAKER • SEPTEMBER 14, 2020

In early July I wrote a piece entitled “Does the next Presidential election even matter?” in which I made the case that voting in the next election to choose who will be the next puppet in the White House will be tantamount to voting for a new captain while the Titanic is sinking. I gave three specific reasons why I thought that the next election would be pretty much irrelevant:

  1. The US system is rigged to give all the power to minorities and to completely ignore the will of the people
  2. The choice between the Demolicans and the Republicrats is not a choice at all
  3. The systemic crisis of the US is too deep to be affected by who is in power in the White House

I have now reconsidered my position and I now see that I was wrong because I missed something important:

A lot has happened in the past couple of months and I now have come to conclude that while choosing a captain won’t make any difference to a sinking Titanic, it might make a huge difference to those passengers who are threatened by a group of passengers run amok. In other words, while I still do not think that the next election will change much for the rest of the planet (the decay of the Empire will continue), it is gradually becoming obvious that for the United States the difference between the two sides is becoming very real.

Why?

This is probably the first presidential election in US history where the choice will be not between two political programs or two political personalities, but the stark and binary choice between law and order and total chaos.

It is now clear that the Dems are supporting the rioting mobs and that they see these mobs as the way to beat Trump.

It is also becoming obvious that this is not a white vs. black issue: almost all the footage from the rioting mobs shows a large percentage of whites, sometimes even a majority of whites, especially amongst the most aggressive and violent rioters (the fact that these whites regularly get beat up by rampaging blacks hunting for “whitey” does not seem to deter these folks).

True, both sides blame each other for “dividing the country” and “creating the conditions for a civil war”, but any halfway objective and fact based appraisal of what is taking place shows that the Dems have comprehensively caved into the BLM/Antifa ideology (which is hardly surprising, since that ideology is a pure product of the Dems (pseudo-)liberal worldview in the first place). Yes, the Demolicans and the Republicrats are but two factions of the same “Party of Money”, but the election of Trump in 2016 and the subsequent 4 years of intense seditious efforts to delegitimize Trump have resulted in a political climate in which we roughly have, on one hand, what I would call the “Trump Party” (which is not the same as the GOP) and the “deplorables” objectively standing for law and order. On the other hand, we have the Dems, some Republicans, big corporations and the BLM/Antifa mobs who now all objectively stand for anarchy, chaos and random violence.

I have always criticized the AngloZionist Empire and the US themselves for their messianic and supremacist ideology, and I agree that in their short history the United States have probably spilled more innocent blood than any other regime in history. Yet I also believe that there also have been many truly good things in US history, things which other countries should emulate (as many have!). I am referring to things like the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the spirit of self-reliance, a strong work ethic, the immense creativity of the people of the US and their love for their country.

It is now clear that the Dems find nothing good in the US or its history – hence their total support for the wanton (and, frankly, barbaric) destruction of historical statues or for the ridiculous notion that the United States was primarily built by black slaves and that modern whites are somehow guilty of what their ancestors did (including whites who did not have any slave owners amongst their ancestors).

Putin once said that he has no problems at all with any opposition to the Russian government, but that he categorically rejects the opposition to Russia herself (most of the non-systemic opposition in Russia is profoundly russophobic). I see the exact same thing happening here, in the US: the Dem/BLM/Antifa gang are profoundly anti-US, and not for the right reasons. It is just obvious that these people are motivated by pure hate and where there is hate, violence always follows!

To think that there will be no violence if these people come to power would be extremely naive: those who come to power by violence always end up ruling by violence.

For the past several decades, the US ruling elites have been gutting the Constitution by a million legislative and regulatory cuts (I can personally attest to the fact that the country where I obtained my degrees in 1986-1991 is a totally different country from the one I am living in now. Thirty years ago there was real ideological freedom and pluralism in the US, and differences of opinion, even profound ones, were considered normal). Now the apparatus needed to crack down on the “deplorables” has been established, especially on the Federal level. If we now apply the “motive, means & opportunity” criterion we can only conclude that the Dem/BLM/Antifa have the motive and will sure have the means and opportunity if Biden makes it to the White House.

Furthermore, major media corporations are already cracking down against Trump supporters and even against President Trump himself (whom Twitter now threatens to censor if he declares that he won). YouTube is demonetizing “deplorable” channels and also de-ranking them in searches. Google does the same. For a President which heavily relies on short messages to his support base, this is a major threat.

One of Trump’s biggest mistakes was to rely on Twitter instead of funding his own social media platform. He sure had the money. What he lacked was any foresight or understanding of the enemy.

Paul Craig Roberts has been one of the voices which has been warning us that anti-White racism is real and that the United States & Its Constitution Have Two Months Left. I submit that on the former he is undeniably correct and that we ought to pay heed to his warning about what might soon happen next. I also tend to agree with others who warn us that violence will happen next, no matter who wins. Not only are some clearly plotting a coup against Trump should he declare himself the winner, but things have now gone so far that the Chairmen of the JCS had to make an official statement saying that the US military will play no role in the election. Finally, and while I agree that Florida might not be a typical state, I see a lot of signs saying “defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic” with the word “domestic” emphasised in some manner. Is this the proverbial “writing on the wall”?

Conclusion:

The Empire is dying and nothing can save it, things have gone way too far to ever return to the bad old days of US world hegemony. Furthermore, I have the greatest doubts about Trump or his supporters being able to successfully defeat Dem/BLM/Antifa. “Just” winning the election won’t be enough, even if Trump wins by a landslide: we already know that the Dem/BLM/Antifa will never accept a Trump victory, no matter how big. I also suspect that 2020 will be dramatically different from the 2000 Gore-Bush election which saw the outcome decided by a consensus of the ruling elites: this time around the hatred is too deep, and there will be no negotiated compromise between the parties.

In 2016 I recommended a Trump vote for one, single, overwhelming reason: my profound belief that Hillary would have started a war against Syria and, almost immediately, against Russia (the Dems are, again, making noises about such a war should they return into the White House). As for Trump, for all his megalomaniacal threats and in spite of a few (thoroughly ineffective) missile strikes on Syria, he has not started a new war.

By the way, when was it the last time that a US president did NOT order a war during his time in office?

The fact is that the Trump victory in 2016 gave Russia the time to finalize her preparations for any time of aggression, or even a full-scale war, which the US might try to throw at her. The absence of any US reaction to the Iranian retaliatory missile strikes against US bases in Iraq in January has shown that US military commanders have no stomach for a war against Iran, nevermind China or, even less, Russia. By now it is too late, Russia is ready for anything, while the US is not. Trump bought the planet an extra four years to prepare for war, and the key adversarie of the US have used that time with great benefit. As for the former world hegemon, it can’t even take on Venezuela…

But inside the US, what we see taking place before us is a weird kind of war against the people of the US, a war waged by a very dangerous mix of ideologues and thugs (that is the toxic recipe for most revolutions!). And while Trump or Biden won’t really matter much to Russia, China or Iran, it still might matter a great deal to millions of people who deserve better than to live under a Dem/BLM/Antifa dictatorship (whether only ideological or actual).

The US of 2020 in so many ways reminds me of Russia in February 1917: the ruling classes were drunk on their ideological dogmas and never realized that the revolution they so much wanted would end up killing most of them. This is exactly what the US ruling classes are doing: they are acting like a parasite who cannot understand that by killing its host it will also kill itself. The likes of Pelosi very much remind me of Kerensky, the man who first destroyed the 1000 year old Russian monarchy and who then proceeded to replace it with kind of totally dysfunctional “masonic democracy” which only lasted 8 months until the Bolsheviks finally seized power and restored law and order (albeit in a viciously ruthless manner).

The US political system is both non-viable and non-reformable. No matter what happens next, the US as we knew it will collapse this winter, PCR is right. The only questions remaining are:

  • What will replace it? and
  • How long (and painful) will the transition to a new US be?

Trump in the White House might not make things better, but a Harris presidency (which is what a “Biden” victory will usher in) will make things much, much worse. Finally, there are millions of US Americans out there who did nothing wrong and who deserve to be protected from the rioting and looting mobs by their police agencies just as there are millions of US Americans who should retain the ability to defend themselves when no law enforcement is available. There is a good reason why the Second Amendment comes right after the First one – the two are organically linked! With the Dem/BLM/Antifa in power, the people of the US can kiss both Amendments goodbye.

I still don’t see a typical civil war breaking out in the US. But I see many, smaller, “local wars” breaking out all over the country – yes, violence is at this point inevitable. It is, therefore, the moral obligation of every decent person to do whatever he/she can do, no matter how small, to help the “deplorables” in their struggle against the forces of chaos, violence and tyranny, especially during the upcoming “years of transition” which will be very, very hard on the majority of the people living in the US.

This includes doing whatever is possible to prevent the Dem/BLM/Antifa from getting into the White House.← Will Hillary and the Dems Get the Civil…

A very good discussion of the Kenosha shooting

August 31, 2020

Source

A very good discussion of the Kenosha shooting

Friends,

I want to share what I consider a very good and useful video discussing what happened during the now famous shootout in Kenosha.  I just want to add two things:

First, in my opinion, the single most important advice this video gives is this: don’t go somewhere you would not go without a gun with a gun.  Or don’t ever do what you would not do without a gun with a gun.

Second, some of you might recall an article of my about self-defense myths and choices for civilians.  I want to repeat here something I wrote in that past article: (red stress added)
——-
What is the main difference between a civilian and a law enforcement officer?

It’s not the gun they carry, nor is it the quality of their training (cops are typically pretty bad shots). It is not the legal right to use deadly force, in self-defense civilians can do that (at least in those jurisdictions which allow civilians to carry a firearm to defend themselves). So what is it? It is the following crucial differences:

When cops hear gunshots they have to go and investigate/intervene whereas when civilians hear gunshots they have to take cover or run.

This is absolutely crucial: law enforcement officers have to enforce the law and protect everybody. Civilians only are allowed to protect themselves (or somebody under their protection) and only until the law enforcement forces show up. This is so important that I want to stress this again: civilians do not have the duty to arrest anybody (even in jurisdictions where so-called “citizens arrests” are legal). Civilians have no business chasing and arresting criminals, they don’t have to initiate a confrontation with gangs, thugs, hooligans, or petty criminals. Civilians do not enforce drug laws (neither should the cops, in my opinion, but that is another topic) and civilians do not make traffic stops. If you are a civilian and you see three thugs going down a one-way street while snorting cocaine and brandishing their guns, you should seek cover and get the hell out of there. Cops are duty bound to immediately intervene. That is a *HUGE* difference.

For civilians firearms are a stop-gap personal protection tool of last resort. It is only when everything else fails that you can produce your weapon and, if that also fails, use it.

Law enforcement officers and civilians live in totally different realities.
——-

I will believe that failing to make this distinction is one of the three what get so much people in trouble (the other two being 1) not calling 911 first and 2) speaking to cops (*only* your lawyers should do that!).

Anyway, here is that video, I hope you find it useful.

The Saker

PS: this guy is not a cop, but former military. Very reasonable guy.
PPS: for whatever this is worth, I agree that BLM/Antifa are anti-US, they hate this country, but they are not Communists at all, even if they claim otherwise. Communism (Marxism-Leninism) is an objectively existing ideology, not a label to apply to any and all anti-US slogans or movements. BLM/Antifa thugs would be immediately jailed in both Cuba or China, irrespective of their ideological pretexts for violence.  My 2cts

Will Hillary and the Dems get the civil war they are trying to provoke?

If you have not already seen this, check out this video of Hillary Clinton stating that, quote, “Joe Biden should not concede under any circumstances“:

“Any” means “any”. That would include the (admittedly hypothetical) case of Trump clearly winning by a landslide. Again, “any” means “any”.

The direct implications of that is that the Dems should re-take the White House by any and all means and under any and all circumstances.

That is also a direct appeal to sabotage the US democracy which, as flawed as it is, is the only rule of law based option currently available to the people of the USA.

Will that result in a civil war?

That is rather unlikely, because for a civil war you need to have at least two credible parties which can coordinate attacks and defensive operations on, at least, a regional scale. I don’t see that in the USA.

But I don’t see how local/regional violence (at times severe) and political chaos can be avoided.

We already know that the Dems will never accept a Trump victory.

We also know that the Trump supporters will claims that the USPS cannot be trusted with mail voting (I totally agree with them, the USPS is one of the worst postal services of any developed country on the planet).

Then there is the following issue: as police departments are “defunded” and cops are resigning en masse (and I sure can’t blame them!), simple citizens will have to increasingly protect themselves, which many of them can do, but the problem here is that these citizens are then charged while the surviving BLM and/or Antifa thugs walk free, even if they attacked first.

In some US states (like Florida, thank God for that!), the local Sheriffs will stand by their citizens and the local DAs will not prosecute those who used lethal force to defend themselves against a short list of forcible felonies (including home violations, carjackings, rapes, etc.). Just listen to this selection of FL sheriffs:

I have been a Florida resident since 18 years now and I can sincerely say that I don’t recommend BLM/Antifa try to loot or riot in Florida, because they will be met with a lot of force and a legal system which strongly favors the law abiding citizen, including in cases of self-defense.

But in northern states?!

So far, if I am not mistaken, most of the riots so far have taken place in northern states (Atlanta is in the south, but it is also not truly a “southern city” since it is run by BLM/Antifa sympathizers; the same could be said about Miami, FL, by the way).

This is probably not a coincidence. And this has nothing to do with “southern racism” (in my experience southerners are no more racist than northerners), but much more with a culture of self-defense, rooted in the land, which makes southern people much more likely to “circle the wagons” and act together.

And while I never bought the (rather silly) arguments that “guns protect the people from tyranny” (tyrants typically have trained and professional forces which can make minced meat of any armed civilians!), I do believe that armed citizens can very effectively stop rioting thugs (just remember how the Koreans of L.A. defended themselves and their stores during the L.A. riots).

Luckily, southern states are much more faithful to the US Constitution than those northern states which have “castrated” the 2nd Amendment “by a thousand (legislative) cuts” (there are, exceptions, of course).

This is not widely known, but in about 25%-30% or so of cases or armed robbery by thugs, their guns either don’t work, or they are fake. Their ammo often sucks too (either bad condition, or completely inadequate). Why? Because criminals are too stupid and too cheap to invest in quality firearms and training. As a result, if BLM/Antifa thugs try to storm a residential neighborhood or some small town in the South, they might be “greeted” by a lot of very competent firepower.

I think that it is pretty clear that the US deep state and the Dem Party are using BLM/Antifa as footsoldiers to create chaos and prepare for even worse violence should Trump win. There are also some signs that the Dem leadership does not want to let the (totally senile) Joe Biden go against Trump in a debate. Here is an excerpt from a ZeroHedge report:

I don’t think that there should be any debates,” Pelosi said on Thursday, one day after President Trump demanded Biden take a drug test before the two square off. “I wouldn’t legitimize a conversation with him – nor a debate in terms of the presidency of the United States,” she added. Pelosi said that Trump was “disgraceful” when he ‘stalked‘ Hillary Clinton during the 2016 debate by walking near her, and that he will probably “act in a way that is beneath the dignity of the presidency.”

The message is clear: we do not recognize Trump as a legitimate opponent and should he win, this will be because of Chinese interference and/or and Russian interference and/or “Republican bullying” (whatever that is supposed to mean). Bottom line: we will under no circumstances accept another defeat.

Dunno about you, but to me this sounds like sedition. Here is how Wikipedia defines this concept:

Sedition is overt conduct, such as speech and organization, that tends toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition often includes subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent toward, or resistance against, established authority. Sedition may include any commotion, though not aimed at direct and open violence against the laws. Seditious words in writing are seditious libel. A seditionist is one who engages in or promotes the interest of sedition.

I don’t see any evidence that Trump and/or the GOP leadership are guilty of sedition, at least not inside their own country – outside, of course, they are currently the single most subversive force on the planet. In fact, I would argue that in spite of all the many major differences, Trump is facing a situation not dissimilar to what Lukashenko faces in Belarus. The biggest difference is that Trump is not backed by Putin. In fact, he is backed by nobody (besides bone fide nutcases like Jair Bolsonaro and Ivan Duque Marquez or cheap prostitutes like Andrzej Duda or Dalia Grybauskaite).

I do see overwhelming evidence that the Clinton Gang & the US deep state & (pseudo-) “liberal” “elites” are all guilty of sedition. As a result of this egging on of rioting thugs, things happen which would have been quite unthinkable just a year ago.

For example: a US Senator and his wife almost got lynched by a mob just outside the White House. Is that even possible? Yes it is, see for yourself:

Friends, this is not Afghanistan or the Central African Republic. And a senator is one of the highest possible offices any man or woman can achieve. Yet in this country capital city, right outside the White House, cops were unable to protect a senator from a mob. Yet this is how the mainstream media presented this: “Protesters confront Rand Paul outside White House after Republican convention“. Since when are criminal thugs who attempt to lynch a senator and his wife called “protesters”?! And does “confront” not suggest that Senator Paul somehow deserved to be “confronted”.

Can you imagine what the media would have said if this had happened to a black senator?

Does this kind of mainstream “reporting” not show that this country’s political system is collapsing?

Conclusion

I don’t see a civil war happening in the US. But I do think that this country can, and probably will, break-up into different zones so to speak. In some regions, law and order will be maintained, by force is needed, while in others something new will appear: what the French call “des zones de non-droit“, meaning “areas of lawlessness” in which law enforcement will be absent (either because the political leaders will refuse to engage them, or because they will simply have to withdraw under fire). Typically, such zones have a parallel “black” economy which can make the gangs which control such zones very wealthy (think of Russia in the 1990s). Eventually, a lot of people will flee from such zones and seek refuge in the safer areas of the country (this process has already begun in New York).

Right now, there are a little over two months before the election, and I think that it is safe to say that the situation will deteriorate even faster and much worse. By November 2nd the country will be “ready” (so to speak) for a massive explosion of violence followed by months of chaos.

Many will probably vote Trump just because they will (mistakenly) believe that he is the only politician who will stand against what the Dems promise to unleash against the majority of “deplorables” who want to keep their country and traditions. At the core, the conflict we are now witnessing is a conflict about identity, something which most people deeply care about. Sooner or later, there will be push-back against the Dems attempt to turn the USA into some kind of obese transgender liberal Wakanda run by crooks, freaks and thugs.

The Dems won’t get their civil war – but they will suffer the blowback for their attempts to destroy the United States.

VIOLENCE AND INSANITY: UNITED STATES EVERYDAY LIFE IN 2020

Violence And Insanity: United States Everyday Life In 2020

South Front

On August 21st, 31-year-old Trayford Pellerin, a black man, died after being shot 11 times by police officers in Lafayette, Louisiana.

Lafayette Police Department officers responded to a disturbance call, involving a man with a knife at a Shell gas station around 8 PM local time on August 21st.

When they tried to apprehend the suspect, identified as 31-year-old Trayford Pellerin, he allegedly ignored repeated orders to surrender as well as several taser shots fired at him.

He simply kept walking, with his back turned to police, while carrying a knife and attempted to enter the gas station’s store.

Around a dozen shots can be heard in the video above, sparking accusations of excessive use of force. Authorities argued that tasers were “ineffective” and failed to stop the suspect, and that he was still armed when he tried to enter the store with people inside.

On August 22nd, violent protests erupted in Lafayette. Protesters blocked traffic as they gathered on Moss Street in Lafayette near a police precinct to protest Pellerin’s death.

Police in riot gear gave a 10-minute warning before releasing flares and smoke canisters into the crowd of protesters, KATC reported.

Afterward, Interim Lafayette Police Chief Scott Morgan said that there were two groups of protesters – those who organized an event earlier in the day and those who he said “choose to be malicious.”

He said people blocked important roadways and started several fires in a grass area, and police observed some throwing fireworks into one of their buildings.

“Our intent is not going to be to just let people disrupt our town and put our citizens and our motorists and our neighborhood in danger. We’re going to use those resources that we have and those other agencies and we’re going to enforce these laws,” he said.

Lafayette Parish Sheriff Mark Garber issued a stern warning to “out-of-town agitators,” a trope sometimes used to try to undermine protest movements.

“If any out-of-town agitators are watching this, if anyone’s planning to enhance their techniques tomorrow or the next day, we are ready for you,” he said. “We are prepared. We will not willingly give up the city. You will have to go through every resource that I have and every resource that the police have in order to do harm to the citizens or to their property.”

“Once again, video footage has captured a horrific and deadly incident of police violence against a Black person who was brutally killed in front of our eyes,” Alanah Odoms Hebert, executive director of the ACLU of Louisiana, said in a statement.

Hebert said the shooting was an “inappropriate and excessive use of force” by the police.

“None of our communities are safe when the police can murder people with impunity or when routine encounters escalate into deadly shooting sprees,” Hebert said. “The ACLU of Louisiana will continue to demand justice for this brutal killing and push for reforms that will end the epidemic of police violence once and for all.”

Meanwhile, the trial against Derek Chauvin, who killed George Floyd on May 25th, is about to begin.

The police’s version of events is that George Floyd was intoxicated in some way, and that the use of force was needed. The general trend in cases such as this in the US when a police officer is accused of excessive brutality, is that the officer gets acquitted and it is done.

In other news of everyday American life, a black man from Bronx knocked the jaw out of a 17-year-old Pennsylvania park employee for asking him to wear a mask.

One of the BLM protesters hit a raccoon twice, then pulled out a baseball bat and beat him to death. The death of the raccoon was posted on social networks and was accompanied by an inscription that only white people care about the protection of animals.

Separately, a black man shot a 5-year-old white neighbor’s boy for driving his bicycle onto his lawn.

The news was not discussed in the American press, and if it was mentioned, instead of a photograph of the real killer, a photograph of his father was published.

News such as this are daily, this is currently considered “social activism” because it is being carried out by the correct group of people, otherwise, it would obviously be a crime.

Finally, Netflix has took it upon itself to also promote some questionable content.

For example, the French “coming-of-age comedy-drama film” Cuties. The main plot detail of the movie is pre-teenage girls twerking on camera. This is the synopsis of the film:

“Eleven-year-old immigrant girl Amy, originally hailing from Senegal, lives with her mother Mariam (Maïmouna Gueye) in one of Paris’s poorest neighbourhoods in an apartment along with her two younger brothers awaiting for her father to rejoin the family from Senegal. Things turn swiftly as Amy is fascinated by her disobedient neighbour Angelica’s twerking clique called Cuties, an adult-style dance troupe which has contrasting fortunes and characteristics to Mariam’s traditional customs, values and traditions.”

Another piece of content by Netflix is show AJ And the Queen, which features a 10-year-old transgender child, who fellow transgender actors joked about being a “top” or the person doing the penetrating in a homosexual relationship.

In the show, the child, who is the 10-year-old daughter of a drug-addicted prostitute, says she wants to be a boy “because people leave boys alone.” Netflix argued that the film was chosen by the fact that it received a prize at the festival Sundance, the founder of which, by coincidence, is also in prison for pedophilia.

Finally, the Democratic National Convention featured a convicted kidnapper and murderer – Donna Hylton.

On March 20, 1985, Donna Hylton and three female accomplices drugged and kidnapped 62-year-old Long Island real estate broker Thomas Vigliarolo at the behest of Louis Miranda, who thought Vigliarolo had cheated him out of $139,000 on a mutual con, in which the two allegedly sold shares in New York City condos and pocketed the money.

The kidnappers held Vigliarolo prisoner for 15–20 days. During that time, three men and four women, including Hylton, starved, burned, beat, sexually assaulted, raped, and tortured him. On April 5, 1985, with Hylton asleep in the next room, Vigliarolo died of asphyxiation. Three days later, his body was found locked in a trunk in a Manhattan apartment.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

America’s Race Reality: Inhuman, Insane, Incoherent

America’s Race Reality: Inhuman, Insane, Incoherent

August 14, 2020

by Ilana Mercer, published with the authorization of the author

Racism is a lot of things. One thing it is not:

A white child, aged five,  executed by a black man with a shot to the head, as the tyke rode his bike. Ask the cultural cognoscenti. They’ll tell you: That’s never racism.

Otherwise, almost anything involving the perpetually aggrieved black community counts as racism.

Students hoist a “thin blue line” flag in solidarity with police: racism.

A black male is asked for his driver’s license: racism. Of course it’s systemic. Are you stupid, or something?

A white politician proclaims that “all lives matter”: Come again? Are you kidding me?!

A museum curator fails to commit to the exclusion of the art of white men, including, presumably, the Old Masters: not racism; white supremacism. Be gone with you, Rembrandt and Vermeer.

A black student struggles with English grammar. English grammar is ruled racist. Take that, Dr. Johnson!

This, even though, logically, it is more likely that our student is not up to the task or hasn’t tried hard enough; that his tutor is not up to the task and hasn’t tried hard enough—or all of those things combined.

As you can see, accusations of racism are seldom grounded in reason or reality.

Racism, then, is just about anything other than the point-blank execution of little Cannon Hinnant (white), on August 9, by Darius Sessoms (black), and the rape, the other day, by Dejon Dejor Lynn, 25, of an old lady: his 96-year-old neighbor.

From the media industry’s modus operandi, we may comfortably deduce that the raped lady is almost certainly white.

How so?

Fully 73 percent of the residents of Ann Arbor, Michigan, are white. If the race of an unnamed victim of black crime is withheld, she’s most likely white. Were the victim Hispanic, the media industry would say so, and would forthwith withhold the picture and race of the “suspect,” so that the crime became an attack against a “minority.”

Similar black-on-white atrocities are a daily occurrence, documented, “in moving images,” by “the fearless and indefatigable journalist Colin Flaherty.” They are either ignored by the media industry or described as racially neutral.

In a powerful responsorial that is almost religious in cadence, Jack Kerwick, a Frontpage.com columnist, commands us to “say their names”:

David Dorn was a 77-year-old retired African-American police captain and family man. Say his name.

Paul and Lidia Marino, a couple in their mid-80s. Say their names!

Wendy MartinezSay her name.

Jourdan Bobbish and Jacob Kudla: Teenagers tortured and murdered. Say their names.

Karina Vetrano: Attacked, sexually assaulted, and strangled to death while jogging. Say her name.

Phil Trenary: Treasury of the Chamber of Commerce in Memphis who was trying to rejuvenate the city’s economic life. Say his name.

Scott Brooks; Sebastian Dvorak; Serge Fournier; Tessa Majors; Dorothy Dow; Lorne Ahrens; Brent Thompson; Michael Krol; Patrick Zamarripa.

Say their names. (“Remembering the Victims of Black Violence – Black and White,” By Jack Kerwick)

The prototypical American victims of racial hatred were 21-year-old Channon Christian and 23-year-old Hugh Christopher Newsom, of Knoxville, Tennessee.

Their slaughter, in 2007, was dismissed as a garden-variety murder and rape. But there is no finessing the white-hot racial hatred seared into their mangled, white bodies.

Read the description of the crime in Into the Cannibal’s Pot, and pray tell how white America can thus forsake its children by accepting the racial innocence of their defilers:

Five blacks—four men and a woman—anally raped Hugh, then shot him to death, wrapped his body in bedding, soaked it in gasoline and set it alight. He was the lucky one. Channon, his fair and fragile-looking friend, was repeatedly gang raped by the four men—vaginally, anally and orally. Before she died, her murderers poured a household cleaner down her throat, in an effort to cleanse away DNA. She was left to die, either from the bleeding caused “by the tearing,” or from asphyxiation. Knoxville officials would not say. She was then stuffed in a garbage can like trash. White trash. (pp. 35-36)

The object of hate is so often a remarkably beautiful woman or man. It is as if the aim is to forever obliterate beauty unattainable.

On the Dark Continent, the same dynamic was in play when “Hutus picked up machetes to slash to bits nearly a million of their Tutsi neighbors in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.” There,

… tribal allegiance trumps political persuasion and envy carries the day. The Tutsi—an alien, Nilotic African people, who formed a minority in Rwanda and Burundi—had always been resented by the Hutus. The tall, imposing Tutsis, whose facial features the lovely supermodel Iman instantiates, had dominated them on-and-off since the 15th Century. On a deeper level, contends Keith Richburg, an African-American journalist, the Hutus were “slashing at their own perceived ugliness, as if destroying this thing of beauty, this thing they could never really attain, removing it from the earth forever.” (Into the Cannibal’s Pot, p. 43)

Such was the murder of Tyler Wingate, “a 24-year-old man from Berkley [who] was brutally beaten to death after a seemingly minor car crash on Detroit’s west side [in July of 2019]. The crash and beating were caught on surveillance video from a nearby gas station.” (The Unz Review)

Undeniably, it is a kind of race-based annihilation of beauty unattainable, for that is certainly what poor Tyler Wingate was blessed with.

For America to have incorporated and assimilated the unreason of “racism” on such a self-immolating scale, as American society has done, is to be mired in self-contradiction. To the Greek philosophers, to be mired in self-contradiction was to be less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.

This is where American society finds itself: less than human, less than coherent, less than sane.

Patriots, please quit the “rest in peace” platitudes. Tyler Wingate and all the rest rage, rage from the grave.

***

Ilana Mercer has been writing a weekly, paleolibertarian column since 1999. She’s the author of Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011) & The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed” (June, 2016). She’s currently on Gab, YouTube, Twitter & LinkedIn, but has been banned by Facebook.

%d bloggers like this: