Harvard University honors The Saker blog (<<== shameless clickbaiting and fake news!)

Look at the big picture and see how the USA are self-destructing, how the EU is collapsing, how Turkey has completely switched sides and now works with Iran and Russia, how the Syrian people are winning against the transnational terrorist gangs which attacked thSaker drawing from communityem, look at Libya and how terrified NATO is by the obvious desire of the new authorities to turn to Russia, look at how confident China is in the
face of a barrage of US threats, look at how Hezbollah played a crucial role in Syria and yet managed to deter the IDF in Lebanon.  Look at how Russia has survived both the (rather ineffective) sanctions and the (immensely damaging) drop in oil prices.  Look at how Iran is standing firm and single-handedly confronts the huge US+Zionist+Wahabi regional coalition and shows no sign of weakness.

The Saker

March 14, 2017

Okay, so I am not being honest with this title.  But hey, since Harvard does list my blog as a ‘fake news’ source, I might as well indulge, at least once, into some absolutely shameless click baiting and “fake newsing” 🙂

Seriously, my friend Steve Lendman wrote an interesting post on his blog about Harvard University’s “guide to fake news”.  Check it out, he does a great job explaining it all.  Also, it’s not like Harvard University focused on my blog.  In fact, their full list is much longer (see here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/10eA5-mCZLSS4MQY5QGb5ewC3VAL6pLkT53V_81ZyitM/).

But yeah, they do list the Saker blog 🙂

Make sure to also read their “guide to fake news” right here: http://guides.library.harvard.edu/fake – it is amazing.

What a fall from grace, really.  Harvard University, arguably THE symbol of US academia, has now joined such “prestigious” (not) actors like CNN or the BBC in the ideological scramble to discredit free information sources.  For somebody like me who studied in US colleges and who got two degrees in the USA, it is really sad.

There used to be a time when US colleges were *really* a beacon of intellectual freedom.  For example, while at the School of International Service (SIS) at American University in Washington, DC, in the late eighties, I remember that we had the former ambassador of Grenada as an academic and while the Reagan administration was not happy about this, there is absolutely nothing they could do to remove her.  In fact, a lot of our faculty was very much opposed to the Reagan administration, and yet no attempts were made to pressure anybody in any way.  Had there been any such attempts they would have resulted in an energetic protest on our part, probably supported by all other colleges in DC (George Washington U, Maryland U, Georgetown U, Howard U).  Call me naive, but I do believe that it would have never crossed the mind of anybody in the White House or Congress to mess with academic freedom or, even less so, to try to use colleges as a tool in a color revolution against the President.

My other degree is from The Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) at the Johns Hopkins University, with a campus based in Washington, D.C.  SAIS became notorious for being a breeding ground for some of the worst Neocons out there.  And that reputation is quite deserved.  Our ‘bad guys’ list ranges from Ambassador April Glaspie to the infamous Eliot Cohen and even includes Zbigniew Brzezinski!  But even at SAIS we had real ideological pluralism and real political diversity, if only because the student body would never have put up with any notion of walking in lockstep with the ideological mantra of the day (in my department, Strategic Studies, we must have been well over 50% foreigners and all “our” Americans were well-traveled and educated – which greatly helped).  We also had some absolutely wonderful teachers who were true expert in their fields and who never lied to us (I considered naming a few here, but that would do them more harm then good.  So I will mention my favorite one, and under a code name only he will understand: yf23 – thank you, Sir!).

The USA can be blamed and criticized for a lot of things, but I don’t think that it can be denied that the academic quality and diversity of US colleges was one of the best ones on the planet.  Americans were rightly proud of their universities and students from all over the world would put a great deal of effort to come and study in the United States, even those who did not at all agree with US politics.

To be honest, I always considered Harvard to be a gang of pompous asses (sorry HU alumni – nothing personal).  But pompous asses or not, Harvard was undeniably a symbol and now that they are endorsing this idiotic ‘fake news’ narrative this symbol is making a massive faceplant.  Sooner or later, I guess sooner, this new anti-Russian hysteria will peter out, just like McCarthyism and the “Red Scare” did, and all that will be left of this is an immense sense of shame and self-loathing for those who took part in it.

It would have been the natural calling for US colleges to be at the forefront of the struggle *against* the current anti-Russian witch-hunt, but instead they are now taking the lead in making sure that this hysteria now also infects academic circles.  The impact of such a policy will be devastating not only for the student body, but also for the teachers.

Did you notice this part of HU’s “fake news guide” (see pic): when in doubt, ask a librarian.  Think about it – this means a number things: first, that librarians have now been co-opted in the struggle for ideological purity; second, that librarians better make darn sure that they full abide by the current ideological dogmas lest they be fired for not being able to fulfill their (new) duties.  Third, that students will now be encouraged to turn to a member of the faculty or staff to ask whether source “x” has received the official imprimatur of the university, college or school.

Nope, this is not the DPRK.  This is the  “the land of the free and the home of the brave” – no kidding!

Against this background, let me do something of a “community service” here and explain how you can evaluate news and news sources without having to ask for an “ideological purity minder” (aka “librarian”) for help.

The system is rather simple, really.

First, judge a tree by its fruits: a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit (Matt, 7:18).  Give yourself enough time to establish a ranking of news sources.  I would suggest you separate them into “reliable”, “sometimes reliable”, “mostly unreliable” and “unreliable”.  But don’t stop here.

The next step is to measure any information you get against all the other information you have and see if they corroborate each other or not.

Finally, take each information and give it a rating indicating how reliable the source is and whether this info corroborates what you otherwise know.  This source+info ranking system is used by most intelligence agencies in some form or another.  Typically, a combo of letters and numbers would be used.  For example, an info rated as “A1” would indicate “reliable source” and “info corroborates”.  A3 would indicate “reliable source” “does not corroborate”.  Whatever your system, make sure to include the “unknown” category which you can apply to both sources and the info itself.  Over time, you will built yourself a pretty good info ranking system, you will see.

Let me reveal a state secret here, but a very little one.  There is an advanced country out there which has a very prestigious newspaper which everybody reads and which has a lot of credibility.  And yet, this country’s intelligence community rates this newspaper as a “C” source – a very mediocre rating.  Now you can imaging where CNN, NBC, NTY, WaPo and all the rest of them would rank 😉

[Sidebar: if you wonder, B-2 is typically the kind of info which would be used for regular day to day analysis]

This Harvard University faceplant is also very good news.  Think of it – would the US elites ever bother sinking so low if they thought that they are winning the information war?  Look at the AngloZionist elites in general – they are all at each other’s throats, not only in the USA but everywhere (just look at the fight between Turkey and the EU taking place and please pass the popcorn!).  I assure you that this latest anti-Russian hysteria is not caused by a sense of confident power, to put it mildly.  And while CNN is freaking out about Putin being the “most powerful man in the world“, we – all those who want to bring down the Empire by using the weapon of truth – are winning our battles every day.  And for all his undeniable merits and achievements, there is much more happening here than just Putin.

“Putin” has become a collective placeholder for every and all the forms of resistance to the AngloZionist elites and their empire.  This is why “Putin” is personally responsible for ‘weaponizing’ Russian soccer fans and personally giving the order to hack the DNC.  I would not be surprised one bit if in the coming days we see an ‘investigation’ by CNN about how ‘Putin personally ordered the Russian military to use their climate weapons to attack the USA’s eastern shores with a snowstorm’.  World-class “Putin specialists” like Masha Gessen would immediately confirm, while John McCaine would demand that the US take “firm retaliatory action to show the Russian dictator that he cannot pour snow on the USA with impunity”.  Needless to say, such report would not raise any eyebrows from Harvard University.

Yes, they are desperate and they are terrified.  Hence all the silly histrionics.

Friends, we are winning!  Yes, we are.  Even if the Neocons end up overthrowing Trump or make him their lackey.  We are winning.  And that is nothing short of amazing (especially considering our means – hint hint about the next thing I will post here…).

Look at the big picture and see how the USA are self-destructing, how the EU is collapsing, how Turkey has completely switched sides and now works with Iran and Russia, how the Syrian people are winning against the transnational terrorist gangs which attacked them, look at Libya and how terrified NATO is by the obvious desire of the new authorities to turn to Russia, look at how confident China is in the face of a barrage of US threats, look at how Hezbollah played a crucial role in Syria and yet managed to deter the IDF in Lebanon.  Look at how Russia has survived both the (rather ineffective) sanctions and the (immensely damaging) drop in oil prices.  Look at how Iran is standing firm and single-handedly confronts the huge US+Zionist+Wahabi regional coalition and shows no sign of weakness.

Sure, this is far from over, we are only winning battles, and we are still far from having won the war.  And we will lose battles in the future (the latest news out of France is not good at all).  But the overall momentum is clearly and undeniably on our side and this is why our enemies are freaking out and resorting to desperate measures like this ‘fake news’ canard.

I think that some high-fiving and back-slapping are in order 🙂

Having indulged in this short moment of celebration, let’s now return to the struggle and fight for the final victory!

 

The Empire should be placed on suicide watch

March 12, 2017

This article was written for the Unz Review

In all the political drama taking place in the USA as a result of the attempted color revolution against Trump, the bigger picture sometimes gets forgotten. And yet, this bigger picture is quite amazing, because if we look at it we will see irrefutable signs that the Empire in engaged in some bizarre slow motion of seppuku and the only mystery left is who, or what, will serve as the Empire’s kaishakunin(assuming there will be one).

I would even argue that the Empire is pursuing a full-spectrum policy of self-destruction on several distinct levels, with each level contributing the overall sum total suicide. And when I refer to self-destructive behavior I don’t mean long-term issues such as the non-sustainability of the capitalist economic model or the social consequences of a society which not only is unable to differentiate right from wrong, but which now decrees that deviant behavior is healthy and normal. These are what I call “long term walls” into which we will, inevitably, crash, but which are comparatively further away than some “immediate walls”. Let me list a few of these:

Political suicide: the Neocons’ refusal to accept the election of Donald Trump has resulted in a massive campaign to de-legitimize him. What the Neocons clearly fail to see, or don’t care about, is that by de-legitimizing Trump they are also de-legitimizing the entire political process which brought Trump to power and upon which the United States are built as a society. As a direct result from this campaign, not only are millions of Americans becoming disgusted with the political system they were indoctrinated to believe in, but internationally the notion of “American democracy” is becoming a sad joke.

And just to make things worse, the US corporate media is finally showing its true face and now unapologetically shows the entire world that not only is it not in any way “fair” or “objective”, but that it is a 100% prostituted propaganda machine which faithfully serves the interests of the US “deep state”.

A key element of the quasi constant brainwashing of the average American has always been the regular holding of elections. Nevermind that, at least until now, the outcome of these elections made very little difference inside the USA and non at all outside, the goal was never to consult the people – the goal has always been to give the illusion of democracy and people power. Now that the Democrats say that the Russians rigged the elections and the Republicans say that it was the Democrats and their millions of dead voters who tried stealing it, it become rather obvious that these elections were always a joke, a pseudo-democratic “liturgy”, a brainwashing ritual – you name it – but never about anything real.

The emergence of the concept of 1% can be “credited” to the Obama Administration, since it was during Obama that the entire “Occupy Wall Street” movement took off, but the ultimate unmasking of the viciously evil true face of that 1% must be credited to Hillary with her truly historical confession in which she openly declared that those who oppose her are a “basket of deplorables”. We already knew, thanks to Victoria Nuland, what the AngloZionist leaders thought of the people of Europe, now we know what they think of the people of the USA: exactly the same thing.

The bottom line is this: I don’t think that the moral authority and political credibility of the USA have ever been lower than today. Decades of propaganda by Hollywood and the official US propaganda machine have now collapsed and nobody buys that counter-factual nonsense anymore.

Foreign policy suicide: let’s see what options there are to choose from. The Neocons want a war with Russia which the Trump people don’t. The Trump people, however, want, well maybe not a war, although that option is very much on the table, but at least a very serious confrontation with China, North Korea or Iran, and about half of them would also like some kind of confrontation with Russia. There is absolutely nobody, at least at the top, who would dare to suggest that a confrontation or, even worse, a war with China, Iran, North Korea or Russia would be a disaster, a calamity for the USA. In fact, serious people with impressive credentials and a lot of gravitas are discussing these possibilities as if they were real, as it the USA could in some sense prevail. This is laughable. Well, no, it it not. But it would be if it wasn’t so frightening and depressing. The truth is very, very different.

[Sidebar: While it is probably not impossible for the United States to prevail, in purely military terms, against the DPRK in a war, the potential risks are nothing short of immense. And I don’t mean the risk posed by the North Korean nukes which, apparently, is also quite real. I mean the risk of starting a war against a country which has Seoul within conventional artillery range, an active duty army of well over one million people and 180’000 special forces operators. Let us assume for a second that the DPRK has no air force and no navy and an army composed of only 1M+ soldiers, 21k+ artillery pieces and 180k special forces. How do you propose to deal with that threat? If you have an easy, obvious solution, you have watched too many Hollywood movies. You probably also don’t understand the terrain.]

But yes, the DPRK also has major wseaknesses and I cannot exclude that the North Korean armed forces would rapidly collapse under a sustained attack by the US and the ROK. I did not say that I believe that this would happen, only that I don’t exclude it. Should that happen, the US might well prevail relatively rapidly, at least in purely military terms. However, please keep in mind that any military operation has to serve a political goal and, in that sense, I cannot imagine any scenario under which the USA would walk away from a war against the DPRK with anything remotely resembling a real “victory”. There is a paraphrase of something Ho Chi Minh allegedly told to the French in the 1940s which I really like. It goes like this:” we kill some of you, you kill a lot of us, and then we win”. That is how a war with the DPRK would probably play out. I call this the “American curse”: Americans are very good at killing people, but they are not good at winning wars. Still, in the case of the DPRK there is at least a possibility of a military victory, even if at a potentially huge cost. With Iran, Russia or China there is no such possibility at all: a war with any of them would be a guaranteed disaster (I wrote about a war in Iran here and about a war with Russia too many times to count). So why is it that even though out of the 4 possible wars, one is a potential disaster and the 3 others are a guaranteed disaster, why is it that these are discussed as if they were potential options?!

The reason for that can be found in the unique mix of crass ignorance and political cowardice of the entire US political class. First, a lot (most?) of US politicians believe in their own silly propaganda about the US armed forces being “the best” in “the world” (no evidence needed!). But even those who are smart enough to realize that this is a load of baloney which nobody outside the USA still takes seriously, they know that saying that publicly is political suicide. So they pretend, go along, and keep on repetitively spewing the patriotic mantra about “rah, rah, USA, USA, ‘Merica number one, we are the best” etc. Some figure that since the USA spends more on aggression that the rest of the planet combined, that must mean that the US armed forces must be “better” (whatever that means). To the birthplace of “bigger is better” the answer is self-evident. It is also completely wrong.

Eventually, something crazy inevitably happens. Like in Syria were the State Department had one policy, the Pentagon another and the CIA yet another one. The resulting cognitive dissonance is removed by engaging in classical doublethink: “yes, we screwed up over and over, but we are still the best”. Ironically, that kind of mindset is at the core of the American inability to learn from past mistakes. If the choice is between an honest evaluation of past operations and political expediency, the latter always prevails (at least amongst civilians, US servicemen are often far more capable of self-critical evaluation, especially in ranks up to Colonel and below, the problem here is that civilians and generals rarely listen to them).

The result is total chaos: the US foreign policy is wholly dependent on the US ability to threaten the use of military force, but the harsh reality is that every country out there which dared to defy Uncle Sam did that only after coming to the conclusion that the US did not have the means to crush it militarily. In other words, only the weak, which are already de-facto US colonies, fear the USA. Or, put differently, the only countries who dare to defy Uncle Sam are the strong ones (that was all quite predictable, but US politicians don’t know about Hegel or dialectics). And just to make it worse, there is no real US foreign policy. What there is is only the sum vector of the different foreign policies desired by various more or less covert “deep state” actors, agencies and individuals. That resulting “sum vector” is inevitably short-term, focuses on a quickfix approach, and unable to take into account any complexity.

As for the US “diplomacy” it simply doesn’t exist. You don’t need diplomats to deliver demands, bribes, ultimatums and threats. You don’t need educated people. Nor do you need people with any understanding of the “other”. All you need is one arrogant self-enamored bully and one interpreter (since US diplomats don’t speak the local languages either. And why would they?). We saw the most compelling evidence of the total rigor mortis of the US diplomatic corps when 51 US “diplomats” demanded that Obama bomb Syria. The rest of the world could just observe in amazement, sadness, bewilderment and total disgust.

The bottom line is this: there is no “US diplomacy”. The USA have simply let that entire field atrophy to the point were it ceased to exist. When so many baffled observers try to understand what the US policy in the Ukraine or Syria is, they are making a mistaken assumption – that there is a US foreign policy to being with. I would argue that the US diplomacy slowly and quietly passed away, sometime after James Baker (the last real US diplomat, and a brilliant one at that).

Military suicide: the US military was never a very impressive one, certainly not when compared to the British, Russian or German ones. But it did have a couple of very strong points including the ability to produce a lot of technical innovations which made it possible to produce new, sometimes quite revolutionary, weapons. And if the US track record on ground operations was rather modest, the US did prove to be a most capable adversary in naval and aerial warfare. I don’t think that it can be denied that for most of the years following WWII the USA had the most powerful and sophisticated navy and airforce in the world. Then, gradually, things started getting worse and worse as the costs of the very expensive ships and aircraft shot through the roof while the quality of the produced systems appeared to be gradually degrading. Weapons systems which looked nothing short of awesome in the lab and test grounds proved to be almost useless once they to to their end user on the battlefield. What happened? How did a country which produced the UH-1 Huey or the F-16 suddenly start producing Apaches and F-35s?! The explanation is painfully simple: corruption.

Not only did the US military industrial complex bloat beyond any reasonable size, it also cloaked itself in so many layers of secrecy that massive corruption became inevitable. And when I speak of “massive corruption” I am not talking about millions but billions or even trillions. How? Simple – the Pentagon claimed did not have the accounting tools needed to properly account for the missing money and that the money was therefore not really “missing”. Another trick – no bid contracts. Or contracts which cover all the private contractor’s costs, no matter how high or ridiculous. Desert Storm was a bonanza for the MIC, as was 9/11 and the GWOT. Billions of dollars got printed out of thin air, distributed (mostly under the cover of national security), hidden (secrecy) and stolen (by everybody in this entire food chain). The feeding frenzy was so extreme that one of my teachers as SAIS admitted, off the record of course, that he had never seen a weapons system he did not like or which he did not want to purchase. This man, whom I shall not name, was a former director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency. Yes, you read that right. He was in charge of DIS-armament. You can imagine what the folks in charge of armament (no “dis) were thinking…

With the stratospheric rise of corruption, the kind of US general which had to be promoted went from fighting men who remembered Vietnam (where they often lost family members, relatives and friends) to ass-kissing little chickenshits” like David Petraeus. In less than half a century US generals went from combat men, to managers, to politicians. And it is against this lackluster background that a rather unimpressive personality like General James Mattis can appear, at least to some, like a good candidate for Secretary of Defense.

Bottom line: the US armed forces are fantastically expensive and yet not particularly well-trained, well-equipped or well-commanded. And while they still are much more capable than the many European militaries (which are a joke), they are most definitely not the kind of armed forces needed to impose and maintain a world hegemony. The good news for the USA is that the US armed forces are more than adequate to defend the USA against any hypothetical attack. But as the backbone of the Empire – they are close to useless.

I could list many more types of suicides including an economic suicide, a social suicide, an educational suicide, a cultural suicide and, of course, a moral suicide. But others have already done that elsewhere, and much better than I could ever do myself. So all I will add here is one form of suicide which I believe the AngloZionist Empire has in common with the EU: a

Suicide by reality denial”: this is the mother and father of all the other forms of suicide – the stubborn refusal to look at reality and accept the fact that “the party is over”. When I see the grim determination of US politicians (very much including the people supporting Trump) to continue to pretend as if the US hegemony was here to stay forever, when I see how they see themselves as the leaders of the world and how they sincerely believe that they need to get involved in every conflict on the planet, I can only come to the conclusion that the inevitable collapse will be painful. To be fair, Trump himself clearly has moments of lucidity about this, for example when he recently declared to Congress

Free nations are the best vehicle for expressing the will of the people — and America respects the right of all nations to chart their own path. My job is not to represent the world. My job is to represent the United States of America. But we know that America is better off, when there is less conflict — not more.

These are remarkable words for which Trump truly deserves a standing ovation as they are the closest thing to a formal admission that the United States have given up on the dream of being the World Hegemon and that from now on the US President will no longer represent the interest of trans-national plutocracies but he will represent the interests of the American people. This sort of language is nothing short of revolutionary, whether Trump truly delivers on that or not. Unlike everybody else, Trump does not appear to suffer from “suicide by reality denial” syndrome, but when I look at the people around him (nevermind the prostitutes in Congress) I wonder if he will ever get to act on his personal instincts.

Trump is clearly the best man in the Trump administration, he seems to have his heart in the right place and, unlike Hillary, he is clearly aware of the fact that the US armed forces are in a terrible shape. But a good heart and common sense are not enough to deal with the Neocons and the US deep state. You also need an iron will and a total determination to crush the opposition. Alas, so far Trump has failed to show either quality. Instead, Trump is trying to show how “tough” a guy he is by declaring that he will wipe out Daesh and by giving the Pentagon 30 days to come up with a plan to do this. Alas (for Trump), there is no way to crush Daesh without working with those who already have boots on the ground: the Iranians, the Russians and the Syrians. It is really that simple. And every American general knows that. Yet everybody is merrily plowing ahead is if there was some kind of possibility for the USA to crush Daesh without establishing a partnership with Russia, Iran and Syria first (Erdogan tried that. It did him no good. Now he is working with Russia and Iran). Will the good folks at the Pentagon find the courage to tell Trump that “no, Mr President, we cannot do that alone, we need the Russians, the Iranians and the Syrians”? I very much doubt it. So, yet again, we are probably going to see a case of reality denial, maybe not a suicidal one, but a significant one nonetheless. Not good.

Who will be the Empire’s kaishakunin?

Alexander Solzhenitsyn used to say that all states can be placed on a continuum which ranges from states whose authority is based on their power to states whose power is based on their authority. I think that we can agree that the authority of the USA is pretty close to zero. As for their power, it is still very substantial, but not sufficient to maintain the Empire. It is, however, more than adequate to protect the interests of the United States as a country provided the United States accept that they simply don’t have the means to remain a world hegemon.

If the Neocons succeed in their attempt to overthrow or, failing that, at paralyzing Trump, then the Empire will have the choice between an endless horror or a horrible end. Since the Neocons don’t really need a war with the DPRK, which they don’t like, but which does not elicit the kind of blind hatred Iran does, my guess is that Iran will be their number one target. Should the AngloZionists succeed in triggering a war between Iran and the Empire, then Iran will end up being the Empire’s kaishakunin. If the crazies fail in their manic attempts at triggering a major war, then the Empire will probably collapse under the pressure of the internal contradictions of the US society. Finally, if Trump and the American patriots who do not want to sacrifice their country for the sake of the Empire succeed in “draining the DC swamp” and finally crack-down hard on the Neocons then a gradual transition from Empire to major power is still possible. But the clock is running out fast.

The Saker

Alan Dershowitz – The Key To Athens

 By Gilad Atzmon

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rH1vaZXgbd0

In his recent address to the ultra-Zionist and war-mongering Stand With Us, Alan Dershowitz said;

people say Jews are too powerful, too strong, too rich, we control the media, we’ve too much this, too much that and we often apologetically deny our strength and our power. Don’t do that!”

Elder Zionist Dershowitz who acquired for himself the reputation of a “remarkable liar” (Chomsky) and a “serial plagiarist”  (Finkelstein) probably decided, just before he meets his creator, to give truth one last try.

In our world, no one can deny that Jews are “too powerful,” “too rich” or that they “control the media.” Yet no one can ignore that Jews themselves are rarely apologetic about their extensive and overblown power.  In fact, as with Dershowitz, most Jews tend to boast about the various facets of Jewish domination and, while boasting, use every trick in the book to silence anyone else who points to that power. As I have been arguing for several years, Jewish power is the ability to suppress the discussion on Jewish power.

Actually, Dershowitz’ approach here is rather refreshing. He admits that Jews are overwhelmingly powerful yet insists on presenting a rationale as to why Jews should never apologize about this overbearing and abusive power.

“WE (the Jews, presumably) have earned the right to influence public debate, WE have earned the right to be heard, WE have contributed disproportionately to success of this country.”

One may wonder who is included in that‘WE’ that has contributed so much to the ‘success’ of America. Is he referring to his client and close friend Jeffrey Epstein who pimped under-aged girls for the elites? Does Dershowitz’ ‘WE’ include Alan Greenspan who led the country to class genocide? Or perhaps his ‘WE’ denotes all those Wall Street Jewish bankers, like the Goldmans, the Sachs and  the Soroses – those who, on a daily basis, gamble on the American future and the global economy. And almost certainly, Dershowitz’ ‘WE’ includes Haim Saban and Sheldon Adelson who have managed to reduce American politics into merely an internal Zionist affair.

Don’t get me wrong, there is no doubt that some Jews have contributed greatly to America’s culture, science, finance and so on. Yet, the notion of the Jewish ‘WE,’ which Dershowitz is here pushing is highly problematic and must be questioned. While it is obvious that the Saban and Adelson lobbies for Israel and Jewish interests subscribe to Dershowitz’ ‘WE,’ it is far from clear whether the likes of Philip Roth have been contributing to American literature as an ordinary American or whether he also is part of the Dershowitz ‘WE.’

It didn’t take the old ethnic-cleansing enthusiast long to deliver his punch line.

“Never ever apologize for using our (Jewish) strength and influencein the interest of peace.”

Considering Dershowitz’ role as an advocate of wars and an apologist for a criminal state, I was perplexed by his pronouncement. I asked myself, “Who are those Jews who so use their strength and influence in the interest of peace?  Is it the Neocon school aka The Project for the New American Century, an immoral interventionist global-Zionist collective that managed to pull America and the entire West into a global war with no end? Or maybe it is the ‘pacifist’ Albert Einstein who practically launched the Manhattan Project and introduced our planet to the imminent danger of eradication? Or perhaps Dershowitz is referring to Sidney Blumenthal who enthusiastically lobbied Secretary of State Clinton into a Libyan imperial intervention while he himself invested in the rebuilding of that state. Or is it the Jewish lobby that pushes constantly for intervention in Syria and war with Iran?

I’d better admit that I’m not aware of many Jews who genuinely use their ‘influence in the interest of peace,’ but when such Jews do appear, Alan Dershowitz is always the first to throw mud at them – as Norman Finkelstein and Richard Falk can testify.

Like Dershowitz, I don’t think Jews should apologize for the crimes of their state – I’m not sure such an apology would mean anything at all.  I don’t know whether Jews should apologize for their power – for Greenspan, Wolfowitz, Madoff or Dershowitz – again, such an act would mean very little. But I do think thatwhenever you see or hearDershowitz spreading his lies, calling for wars or celebrating his usual legalist, non-ethical symptoms, bear in mind that he is a spokesperson for the Jewish national project. Everything that is wrong with choseness and tribal supremacy is personified in this man. As such, Alan Dershowitz is a valuable window into the heart of Jerusalem, there to remind us how painful the flight from Athens has been.

But at the same time, the rejection of Dershowitz and everything he stands for, is for the Western mind, a homecoming, a key to Athens, a return to forever.

The rejection of Dershowitz and everything he stands for, is the key to Athens...

The rejection of Dershowitz and everything he stands for, is the key to Athens…

Paul Craig Roberts: Washington’s Benevolent Mask is Disintegrating

[ Ed. note – This commentary by Paul Craig Roberts was posted on Tuesday, March 7 though apparently before revelations surfaced of the Wikileaks so-called “Vault 7” disclosure, or at least before the story had gained wide traction. In this piece Roberts discusses the campaign to start a war with Russia, and he also makes some excellent comments on the candidacy of Marine Le Pen in France and the ongoing efforts to sabotage it. His main argument is that “Washington’s mask of benevolence is falling away, revealing the face of greed and evil that is its true face.” It is an argument that is given exponentially greater force by the disclosures–which go unmentioned in the piece–of the CIA’s vast arsenal of cyber weaponry and its active involvement in spying on people via smart phones, TVs, and other devices. ]

By Paul Craig Roberts

The few weeks of Trump’s presidency suffice to make clear that there will be no change this time either. Normal relations with Russia are on the back burner, if not off the stove. The material needs of the military/security complex for an enemy in order to justify its budget and police state powers, and the ideological needs of the neoconservatives for US world hegemony, are deemed to be more important than trust between thermo-nuclear powers. As for the liberal/progressive/left, they regard working to preserve life on earth as merely a pretext for being soft on Russians and those who commit treason by favoring friendly relations with Russia.

The American working class has discovered that it has among Trump’s government no larger a constituency than have the Russians. Having been told by corporations, which are spending billions of dollars buying back their own stock, that they are too poor to pay US wages, Trump has found that the path to economic security for the work force lies in corporate tax reduction. Identity politics marches for open borders for Muslims and Hispanics and for transgendered toilet facilities, not for bread and peace, and wants Trump impeached because he is not yet at war with Russia.

Trump’s Russophobic appointments, such as McMaster, Mattis, and Fiona Hill are actually worse than Obama’s Victoria Nuland, Samantha Power and Susan Rice. Just as Hillary and Nuland brought regime change to Ukraine, Tillerson at the State Department has signaled regime change of the democratically elected government in Venezuela. Ecuador and Bolivia won’t be far behind.

Washington has never supported governments that put the interests of their peoples ahead of the interests of those who rule the US. From Africa to South America to Indonesia to Cuba to Vietnam to Iran to Egypt, Washington has always misrepresented the forces for change as communist. Washington overthrew the first democratically elected government in Iran http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cia-assisted-coup-overthrows-government-of-iran , the first in the Congo https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/poverty-matters/2011/jan/17/patrice-lumumba-50th-anniversary-assassination , the first in Egypt http://www.timesofisrael.com/announced-as-president-of-egypt/ , and a large numbers of others. Read Stephen Kinzer’s The Brothers. Read General Smedley Butler who said that he and the US Marines made South America safe for the United Fruit Company and investments of the New York Banks. Read John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man.

Washington opposes democratic change with an iron fist. Now Marine Le Pen, the favored candidate for the presidency of France in the upcoming election, is in the process of being destroyed by Washington.

Marine is not on Washington’s approved list. The reasons are: (1) she speaks to French interests, not to Washington’s or the EU’s, (2) she opposes the Trans-Atlantic Partnership, which gives US global corporations immunity to French laws against GMOs, and French labor, safety, and environmental standards, (3) she supports French opinion that the French are French and not “European” and wants out of the European Union, and (4) she wants France out of NATO, which uses France as a tool for American aggression.

Washington first attacked Marine via its surrogates in the French press and government, who managed to nullify her parliamentary immunity. With this achieved, she is now accused of “misuse of EU funds.”

The charge, of course, is a hoax, a frame-up. The charge, if it proves effective, will rely on the French presstitute media’s portrayal of Marine as a “fascist” for representing French nationalism. Today, if a European person is loyal to his or her own country and not to the EU, the person is considered to be a “nationalist,” a term that has been merged with “fascist.” The consequence is that anyone in France who wants to represent the French is a “fascist.”

Marine Le Pen lost her parliamentary immunity because she posted photos of ISIS victims on Twitter. The photos she posted were accurate and correct, simply the truth. But the charge is that to tell the truth about ISIS means that you are anti-Muslim, which today is like being anti-Jew, anti-black, anti-homosexual and anti-transgendered. The protection of Identity Politics now extends not only to the Muslim refugees from America’s wars who are overrunning the Western world but also to ISIS. The accurate and truthful photos violated Identity Politics.

The consensus of those few in Europe who reside outside the Matrix created for them by Washington and the American presstitutes is that the CIA will not permit Le Pen to become President of France. She is a threat to Washington’s empire. If she cannot be destroyed with scandal and false charges, like Dominique Strauss-Kahn, she will be assassinated.

Democracy cannot function without an honest media. Nowhere in the Western world does an honest media exist. There are a relatively few sites on the Internet media, such as this one, your site, that are independent of ruling elites and speak the truth to the extent that they can find it. But the very shadowy PropOrNot website, likely a product of the CIA or George Soros, has declared those who understand that good relations between thermo-nuclear powers are essential to be “Russian agents.”

One dozen Russian Satan 2 ICBMs are sufficient to destroy the United States. One is sufficient to destroy France, the UK, or Texas. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/25/russia-unveils-satan-2-missile-powerful-enough-to-wipe-out-uk-fr/ Why is Washington and Washington’s European, Canadian, and Australian puppets inviting such an outcome with continuous false accusations against Russia (and China). No person with any intelligence can possibly regard the thrice elected president of Russia as “the new Hitler,” “a Mafia Don,” “ a thug.”

By orchestrating Russophobia in the West, Washington has put all of humanity at risk. The Russians have watched Washington’s false accusations against Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Libya, Yeman, Pakistan, Iran and against Russia herself—“invasion of Ukraine.” False accusations have in the 21st century always been Washington’s set-up of the target country for invasion or bombing.

These provacations issued daily by the idiot Western press, the idiot Western governments, and the idiot commentators have prepared the groundwork for a misunderstanding that can result in thermo-nuclear war and the end of life on earth.

Continued here

Trump Administration, Neocon or Isolationist? The Future Is All About Russia, Iran and China

Global Research, March 01, 2017
mcmaster trump

The best-case scenario has come about, which is to say the end of a world facing the specter of a mushroom cloud. With Hillary Clinton’s defeat, we avoided a nuclear denouement stemming from a direct clash with Russia in Syria and an escalation of the conflict in Ukraine. Unfortunately the good news ends here. The chaos that originated in the United States following the election of Donald Trump does not augur well. The economic crisis has persisted for ten years, with no solutions in sight. Ignored and underestimated by the elite, it has become the engine of dissatisfaction with politicians, generating a wave of protest votes in the United States and Europe. The positive outcome, a break with the past, has degenerated into a period of apparent chaos and disorder, caused mainly by internal clashes between the leaders of the ruling classes.

No one can doubt that Trump was not the preferred candidate of the intelligence agencies (CIA and NSA especially), the media, and the Washington political consensus. This really needs no proof. But to say, on the other hand, that Trump is the man of some generals, many bankers and corporations, is to engage in an oversimplification that fuels further confusion surrounding the new administration.

The sabotage attempts against the new administration are quite apparent, directed mainly by the fringes of both the Democratic and Republican parties that are politically opposed to Trump, with help from the intelligence agencies and the media. This triumvirate of the intelligence agencies, the media, and the political establishment has already inflicted serious damage: the sabotage in Yemen; Flynn’s early exit from the role of the National Security Advisor; the antagonistic relationship between the press and the administration; and an endless series of controversies over the role of NATO and trade treaties (such as TPP). This triad, directed by leaders of the Democratic and Republican parties, seems to be working at full speed to reach an unthinkable outcome after only one month, namely the impeachment of Trump and the appointment of President Pence to provide continuity for the policies of Bush and Obama in line with the American project for global hegemony.

Donald Trump, while not a fool, is attempting to repair the sabotage with errors and decisions that often worsen the situation. The decision to fire Flynn seems wrong and excessive, distancing him from his desire for detente in international relations, one of the Trump’s most important promises.

To try and accurately hypothesize about the internal decisions and mechanisms made in the Trump administration would require excessive confidence in the authenticity of the information available. Certainly Bannon and Flynn appeared to be the core of Washington’s anti-establishment element and the major advocates of a rapprochement with Moscow. Following this line of speculation, Pence, McMaster (appointed to succeed Flynn), Mattis and Priebus seem to represent the neoconservative faction, the heart of the bipartisan establishment of Washington. The fact that they were appointed directly by Trump leaves us with two conclusions: an excessive confidence in Trump’s own ability to tame the beast, or an imposition from above which presupposes a lack of Trump’s control over his administration and over big decisions.

Figures like Rex Tillerson and Mike Pompeo arouse further confusion. While apparently confirming the policy of America First, and not necessarily giving a nod to the neoconservatives, they are certainly more digestible than anti-establishment figures like Bannon and Flynn.

The essential problem, especially for those who write analysis, is to find a rational and logical thread running through presidential decisions to be able to understand and anticipate the future direction of the new administration. To date, over just one month, we have witnessed some events that indicate a draining of the swamp, and others that indicated a full continuation of the Obama and Bush era.

Any hypothesis needs objective data and assessments confirmed by events. In my previous articles I have emphasized the clear distinction that must be made between words, actions (or lack thereof) with respect to the new administration. In Syria and Ukraine, the factions traditionally supported by the neocons (who are openly opposed to Trump) are experiencing a hard time. Poroshenko is becoming increasingly nervous and provocative (Putin, rightfully trusting no-one in Washington, has started the process of the Russian Federation recognizing the passports of the Donbass), attempting to involve Russia in the Ukrainian conflict. In Syria the situation improves every day thanks to the liberation of Aleppo and squabbling between Assad’s opponents, which has resulted in a series of clashes between different takfiri factions concentrated in Idlib.

In both of these scenarios, European and American politicians, the intelligence agencies (guided by the CIA), and the media have joined in efforts to attack the new administration for not being friendly enough towards Kiev and also possibly opposing the arming and training moderate rebels in Syria. Pence’s recent words in Monaco have served to reassure European allies on the future role of NATO and the United States in the world. Yet some changes already seem to be taking place in Syria, where it appears that the CIA has had to give in and end the terrorists’ funding program. One of the deep state’s emissaries and links with Islamic terrorism, John McCain, made a trip to Syria and Turkey to mediate and renew ties with the most extremist Wahhabis present in Syria. McCain’s objective is to sabotage Trump’s attempts to end support for moderate rebels in Syria (AKA Al Qaeda). McCain’s efforts also aim for arapprochement with Erdogan, to push him back towards the deep state’s cause and again sabotage the diplomatic efforts between Turkey and Iran and with Russia in Syria. The same effort was made in Ukraine by McCain and Graham a couple of months ago, inciting the army and political elites in Ukraine to ramp up their operation in Donbass. These are two clear indications of the intention to create problems for the new administration.

The bottom line is the chaos surrounding the new administration.

Trump lives on a dangerous misunderstanding: Is the President in control of events, or is he at the mercy of decisions made at higher levels and against his express will? Observing Syria and Ukraine, it would appear that the intended rapprochement with Moscow is still on course. The toning down of harsh words against Iran, coinciding with the ouster of Flynn, further offers promise. Detente and the resumption of dialogue with Beijing seem to suggest that an escalation in the South China Sea and East China Sea will be avoided. The same is the case regarding the abolition of the TTP.

Yet the overall impression that we seem to get from the first thirty days is of an administration in chaos. Flynn’s ouster is a blow to the rapprochement with Moscow. Having replaced Flynn with McMaster, a disciple of Petraeus who is a strong supporter of the 4 + 1 approach (Russia, Iran, China, North Korea + ISIS) as the main focus of foreign policy, seems to minimize the hope of an administration free from warmongering. The 4 + 1 approach is at the heart of the attempt at global hegemony so dear to the promoters of American exceptionalism. The possible entry of Bolton with an undefined role, the appointment of Pence as vice president, and the roles played by Priebus and Mattis suggest a return of the neoconservatives to the driving seat. But is it really so?

The impressions we can glean come from the previous experiences of Trump appointees, media publications, drafts from the CIA, and possible leaks from those betraying the administration. The perception that we can obtain as outsiders cannot be precise, possibly being the result of constant manipulation from the news media. What credibility left have newspapers, politicians and anonymous intelligence sources that over the past two decades have cynically moulded the public’s perception of major wars and conflicts around the globe?

The question is how to be free from such conditioning in order to develop an accurate idea about Trump. Is Trump at war with the deep state? Is Trump a parallel product of the deep state? Is he an acceptable alternative for some of the deep-state factions?

Whatever the answer, we are facing an unprecedented clash between different mixes of establishment power. Certainly there are factions aligned with the thinking of the neoconservatives; factions linked to the new Secretary of State, the powerful former CEO of Exxon Mobil; factions with nationalist intentions pushing for an isolationist policy that seeks to abide by the principle of America First. If there is any certainty, it is precisely that we do not have any logical thread to divine Donald Trump’s intentions. There are too many uncertainties with respect to the intentions expressed by Trump, with the influence of the warmongers in his administration, and with the ability of his loyal collaborators (Bannon above all) to stem internal erosion.

Basically there is a major lack of information. This results in excessive consideration and importance being placed on the words expressed by Trump, which are often at odds with each other and often in conflict with other ideas within the administration. At the same time we should especially observe actions (or non-actions) of the new administration, and following this logic we can line up some important events. Trump has already had two telephone conversations with Putin, one of which was particularly positive, according to White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer. There have been exchanges between Beijing and Washington, including a letter especially popular with the Chinese leadership; and Iran seems to have momentarily disappeared from the radar following Flynn’s ouster. On the other hand, the additional sanctions on Iran are there to remind how the Republican administration will guarantee a negative stance towards Tehran. In this sense it is not surprising that the red carpet was laid out for Netanyahu on his visit to Washington.

Surely the absence of Trump at the Monaco conference is another important signal. The current president intends to continue to give priority to domestic over international politics.

For now we have to settle for a few crumbs of insight. In Syria the situation is improving thanks to the inaction of Washington; and In Ukraine Poroshenko has not found in the new administration the type of support he had been expecting to receive from Hillary Clinton had she won the election (a disappointment shared by the Banderists in Kiev and the Takfiri Wahhabis in Syria). The good news seems to end here, with a series of potentially explosive situations already in place. Western troops remain on Russia’s border (the withdrawal of such a deployment would have demonstrated to Moscow Trump’s genuine intention to dialogue, a concession, though that would have infuriated many members of the EU). The Saudis continue to receive important support for their campaign in Yemen. Constant threats against the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea continue unabated. And Trump’s executive orders on the home front have inspired a strong domestic reaction.

These are disappointing policies adopted in the first thirty days by an administration that seemed so inclined to break with the past. As the days go by, and more people get appointed to the administration and others driven out, the picture that appears to be emerging is that of a grueling battle with the deep state, leading to significant concessions by Trump. McMaster, Mattis, Priebus and Bolton seem to reflect this. Or maybe not. Bolton will find himself in a much lesser role than had been potentially considered (Secretary of State), and McMaster could spell the way to rebuild the military and strengthen deterrence without having to resort to brutal force, which would remain a final choice for the POTUS.

The risk for Trump lies in being overwhelmed by the war machine that has directed US policy for more than 70 years. He will then have given up without even having had the opportunity to try and change the course of events, if this had been his real intention in the first place. The problem with this new administration is trying to understand what is imposed and what is the result of strategic thinking. It should not be excluded that the Trump strategy to hold together the base with respect to election promises by creating a smoke screen in which he is portrayed as a fighter against the deep state who must occasionally yield in order to maintain peaceful coexistence. It is important not to discard this hypothesis for a deeper reason: Trump has to demonstrate to his voters that he is altogether outside of the establishment, and the best way to demonstrate this is to be the target of the MSM, thus attracting the sympathy of all who have long lost faith in the authenticity of the disseminators of news and information. It is a fine tactic, but not exceedingly so. Will he continue to act like a victim during the presidency, continuing to put up an effective shield against criticism about unfulfilled election promises, particularly in foreign policy? Will his voters continue to buy it? We will see.

If the administration’s actions in the future head in a direction similar to that of Obama or Bush, Trump cannot act like a victim, since it was he picked the closest people in his administration.

This again reminds us of the lack of information available to form an objective view, compounded by the fluctuations of the new administration.

There is a positive and important aspect to this situation. Tehran, Beijing and Moscow have increasing incentives to strengthen their alliance and not to question friendships; to forge ahead with projects that advance Eurasian integration. The election of Trump was accompanied by the grand strategic objective of splitting the alliance between China and Russia. But fortunately, Trump has offered little hope of a dialogue with Moscow in this respect. The most important thing is that an escalation of confrontation that may have led to a nuclear exchange has been averted.

Paradoxically, we could be facing an extremely advantageous situation for the Eurasian continent, allowing for further integration, with Washington’s continued adversarial stance (especially Iran and China in terms of trade sanctions and war) ensuring that valuable time will not be lost in excessive talks with the new American president. If Trump will maintain two key promises, namely to avoid a conflict and think about domestic interests (internal and economic security), then this will mean that the multipolar world in which we live will certainly have a better chance of stability and economic prosperity, which is the main desire of many countries, primarily China, Russia and Iran.

Trump’s contradictions, when observing the intentions expressed during the election campaign and comparing them with appointments made to key posts, have alarmed and continue to cause concern, leaving Iran, China and Russia with little hope for future cooperation with Washington. The possibility of a joint dialogue without excessive demands seems to be fading, advancing the hope of an acceleration of Eurasian integration, giving little regard for the indecipherable intentions of the new administration.

A world order with responsibility shared between the US, Russia and China seems out of the question. Yet on the horizon there seems to be no signs of an imminent conflict for the purposes of imposing the old unipolar world order on the multipolar world. The possibility that Trump will fall back on a neocon posture is difficult but not impossible to imagine (after all, this is the United States, a nation that has for seventy years tried to impose its own way of life on the rest of world), but why exclude the possibility that even Trump could be converted to the religion of exceptionalism? After all, how much confidence can we place in politics? You already know the answer to that one.

4 Dead Russian Ambassadors in 3 Months ~ Foul play?

A farewell to Russia’s permanent representative to the UN, Mr Churkin, for well over a decade, featuring Spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Maria Zakharova. Following the Assassination of Andrei Karlov in Turkey earlier this year, was the death of Andrey Melanin in Athens of ‘natural causes’. Ambassador Alexander Kadakin to India had died of an apparent heart attack, even though no previous health issues were known. Together with Vitaly Churkin, this now brings the death total of Russian officials serving in foreign capacity to 4, all within a 3 month period. Coincidence? Or does the CIA have a long arm?

This episode features Mr Churkin dispelling allegations of Russia having dropped leaflets over Aleppo, urging civilians to leave the city or face death. Of course, it is only the senile or those with short memories, who would think that “evidence” presented in the UN Security Council, is anything more than fabricated Neocon garbage. See linked video at the end, with Colin Powell’s “weapons of mass destruction” a.k.a simple washing powder. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, based on this kind of “evidence” would take over half a million Iraqi lives…. To shame. US military deaths cannot be calculated due to contractors such as Blackwater not being included in official statistics. Military industrial company fat cat CEOs only rub their hands in glee.

(Translation thanks to Inessa Sinchougova)

Trump dreams vs Trump reality – hopes still permitted!

February 19, 2017

Trump dreams vs Trump reality – hopes still permitted!

This article was written for the Unz Review 

For a lot of Trump supporters the past week has been a painful one. Whether we chose to react with abject panic or pretended like nothing happened, something did happen and it was something big: the Tree Letter Agencies pulled-off a de facto coup against Donald Trump by forcing him to fire his most important foreign policy advisor and the man who had dared to declare that he wanted to reform the bloated and largely ineffective US intelligence community.

There is no way of putting a brave face on what happened. Not only because it showed that Trump is not loyal to those who are loyal to him, but because this episode pretty much killed what I would call the “Trump dream”. I chose my words carefully here. I speak of “Trump dream” as opposed to the Trump reality. Let me explain.

The “Trump dream”

When Trump won the elections the spectrum of hopes about his actions was very wide. It ranged from “Trump will forever reshape the international system, end the Empire and bring peace and prosperity to the USA” to “he will never be as bad as Hillary no matter what he does”. On that spectrum, here is what I would list as the key elements of the “Trump dream”:

  1. Draining the swamp: kicking the Neocons down to the basement they crawled out of 24 years ago, reforming the US intelligence community, possibly even dissolving the CIA or, at the very least, subordinating it, and the JCS, to the President.
  2. Making peace with Russia and negotiate a “grand bargain” which would clearly spell out how the USA and Russia would act towards each other and jointly against common threats. At the very least, this would imply an agreement on the Ukraine and Syria.
  3. Work with Russia to create a new European security system which would keep NATO as a political organization, but which would “dilute it” into a new security framework ranging from Portugal to the Ural mountains and which would include a 21st century version of the Conventional Forces Europe treaty.
  4. Stop pouring billions of dollars into the Empire and redirect the immense resources currently wasted on war, aggression and subversion back into the United States and their decaying infrastructure, medical care, education, small business, etc. Until now, the main profitable sectors of the US economy were either the military-industrial complex or finance. The hope was that Trump would kick-start the “real” economy: the production of goods and services.
  5. End what I would call the “dictatorship of the minorities” and replace it with a restoration of the sovereignty of the majority of the American people over their country. The “Rachel Maddows” who used to be the “ideological masters” of the AngloZionist regime would be gently ushered towards the doors and replaced by people most Americans could identify with.
  6. Law and order would be restored to the USA and the uncontrolled flow of immigrants would finally be regulated at least to some degree.
  7. Last, but most definitely not least, Trump would not act on this stupid, counter-productive and self-defeating Iran-bashing and China-bashing rhetoric. Remember – what I am listing here is not a realistic evaluation of what Trump might do once in power, but what I deliberately called the “Trump dream” with emphasis on the second word. Sure, there might be those who wanted Trump to deliver on his threats and possibly even start a war with Iran or China, but I have not met them. (Then again, these are not people I like to be around). Again, this is my, subjective and personal outline of what I think many (most?) Trump supporters were dreaming about, nothing more.

Following the past week, I would say that, for the most part, this dream is now over, especially points 1,2,3 and 5, points 6 and 7 are on life support and only 4 is having of chills and a runny nose but might still live.

They key, of course, is point 1: draining the swamp. In other words, wrestling the power away from the Neocons and the US ‘deep state’ and putting it back where it belongs: in the hands of a President with a mandate of a majority of the American people. That is, alas, the biggest loss we all suffered last week: the man who was supposed to drain the swamp got a humiliating smack-down by a deep state drunk on its own infinite chutzpah. The biggest deal is not that Flynn was sacked, although that is a big deal, but the fact that the deep state forced Trump into publicly betraying Flynn and sacking him instead of those who were involved in this palace coup (including Pence himself).

What the deep state demonstrated this week is that everybody in the Executive Branch serves not at the pleasure of the President, but at the pleasure of the deep state, including probably Donald Trump himself.

By terminating Trump’s #2 the Neocons have now shown the world that everybody else (#3, #4, etc.) and possibly #1 are all here only to the extend that they, the Neocons, let them. I am personally convinced that unless Donald Trump finds in himself the courage to mount a major counter-attack, the Neocons will find a way of kicking him out out the White House before his term ends. That is typically their style: sending “messages” and “making an example”.

If Trump “behaves” they might, possibly, let him do a little of points #6 (law and order) and #4 (redirecting some money to the US homeland). As for point #7 (Iran and China bashing), that is the only part of his program which they will enthusiastically support (thereby also ending the dream of him not acting on that crazy nonsense).

So yeah, this is bad, and barring a miracle, the dream is really over.

However, let’s put that right back in perspective.

The Trump reality

If the *dream* is over, that is hardly a reason to become despondent or to claim that supporting Trump was a mistake. Please always keep in mind what the alternative was: Hillary Clinton.

One of my favorite Russian commentators, Ruslan Ostashko, brilliantly put it when he said:

Not a single rational person was expecting Trump to display true friendship or love for Russia or an immediate recognition of Crimea (as part of Russia). Our joy at the election of Trump was linked to a single factor: with Clinton we would had no chances, none at all, to agree on anything. If Clinton was now sitting in the White House we would not be discussing the issue of the recognition of Crimea or the future of US sanctions. We would be trying to guess when the nuclear war would start, we would be studying our bomb shelter maps, how to use a Geiger counter, and how to count the correct dosage for iodine tablets.

He is absolutely right, of course. This is also exactly what I wrote on November 9th following the election:

So it has happened: Hillary did not win! I say that instead of saying that “Trump won” because I consider the former even more important than the latter. Why? Because I have no idea whatsoever what Trump will do next. I do, however, have an excellent idea of what Hillary would have done: war with Russia. Trump most likely won’t do that.

I never was a “Trump dreamer”. I was merely a Trump *hoper* meaning that I had hopes that Trump would not only be better than Hillary, but that he might deliver on, at least, some of his “dream” message.

But if the choice is the Neocons humiliating Trump or thermonuclear war – then I pick the former, with gratitude.

Furthermore, however unpleasant this thought might be to many Americans, it is an undeniable fact that the United States are currently the host upon which the AngloZionist parasite feeds and which this parasite uses to try to subjugate the entire planet.

What is happening now is that the Neocons and the deep state have succeeded in re-taking control of their host, but only at the cost of a major weakening of that host. And that is objectively good for our planet. Just as the coup in Turkey ended up gutting the military and security services and dramatically curtailing their ability to influence the events in Syria (this is, in part, why Erdogan is now playing ball with the Russians and the Iranians), the ongoing color revolution against Trump is gutting the power of the American host and, thus, of the AngloZionist parasite. For one thing, the entire political establishment is so deeply involved in the struggle for power inside the USA, that very little bureaucratic energy is left to deal with anything else. Furthermore, in political terms, the “indispensable nation” and “city upon the hill” are now the laughingstock of the planet. The next time around some State Department propagandist starts regurgitating the usual chunk of propaganda prolefeed about democracy, human right and fair elections he will be greeted with a hysterical laughter and screams of “physician, heal thyself!!”. And, frankly, God only knows where this process might lead us next. I, for one, would absolutely not exclude the possibility of civil war in the USA. And before that statement gets greeted with jeers and the usual set of ad hominems, let me remind you that I predicted the civil war in the Ukraine when almost everybody else was in total denial (see: The gates of Hell are opening for the Ukraine, written on Nov 20th, 2013). At this point in time, I am not predicting a civil war in the USA, but I am saying that it has become a real possibility.

Civil war or not, all the Neocons and the deep state are doing is accelerating the inevitable collapse of the USA as a world hegemon. True, Trump could not have prevented it, but he could have negotiated it, using the still immense power of the USA to get the best possible deal from the other big actors. If a person falls off a skyscraper, there is no way of preventing him of hitting the ground – but whether he has a parachute or not will make a huge difference to him on how he will land. That is what Trump could have done – making a “descent on the breaks” as the Russians expression goes. The skills to make that happen are straightforward: realism, willingness to negotiate, ability to understand the other guy, the courage to give up that which is not sustainable, etc. That is the exact skillset that the Neocons totally lack. What they can do is double-down, then double-down again, and then double-down some more. And that kind of maniacal attitude always leads to catastrophe.

Whatever may be the case, the big story for the foreseeable future will be the infighting inside the US deep state. Why infighting? Because Trump is also part of the deep state, he did just suddenly pop out of nowhere ex nihilo, he had, and still has, powerful backers. That’s the, comparatively speaking, the good news. The bad news is that the faction of the deep state which is backing Trump appears to be the weaker one. And Trump himself is not exactly a knight in shining armor, to put it mildly. Still, if we imagine that by some aggregate measure of power the anti-Trump forces inside the deep state are, oh, 70% and the Trump supporters are therefore 30%, the infighting between the 70% and the 30% will leave very little energy to either party to deal with Russia, China or Iran.

It is a sweet irony that the big proponents of divide et impera did just that to themselves, is it not?

Conclusion

It is way too early to become despondent. Yes, the “Trump dream” is probably over, it was beautiful as long as it lasted, but now the “Trump reality” is taking center stage and we all need to learn how to operate in this new context. We need to carefully and systematically study this new reality and carefully parse it for all the risk and opportunities it presents us with. And there are a lot of great opportunities, along with very real risks, to be discovered. Just the fact that the leaders of the Empire have turned against each other is a God sent blessing! Let’s use that to the max.

Coincidence or not, but the Duran is reporting that the Chairman of the JCS, General Joe Dunford, and General Valery Gerasimov, the Chief of the Russian military’s General Staff have met in Baku. This is the first such meeting since January 2014 and it took place in a “cordial atmosphere”. In fact, Dunford reassured Gerasimov that there are in fact no plans to deploy US ground troops to Syria (there are, of course, already several thousand US troops on the ground in Syria, both sides know that, but both sides also know what Dunford is referring to: regular armed forces).

Can you imagine such a meeting under Hillary?

What happened is really simple. With the election of Trump, the Neocons suffered a crushing defeat and it took them less than a month to regroup castrate Trump. This is bad and the “Trump dream” is over. But we – the resistance to Empire, as still in very good shape. After all, Trump was never *our* candidate, he was the candidate of the part of the deep state which we, opponents of the US deep state in toto, supported as a lesser evil: and we were right – he was and he still is the lesser evil. Furthermore, the party which really lost the most is the Trump-supporting part of the deep state, and they now enough power left (10, 30 or 45 percent – that does not really matter) to regroup and fight back. And if/when they do fight back, we still have to give them our support simply because that is the moral and pragmatic thing to do. Right now, Trump looks like Yanukovich, true. But I think that he is also a far smarter and much more honorable person than Yanukovich. Call me naïve, but my gut feeling is that Trump cares for the USA and that he wants to do the right thing. I might be wrong, of course. But at least so far I do not see the clear signs of the total rot and corruption which Yanukovich has all over his face. Furthermore, Trump appears to be learning. That is very important. In his latest press conference Trump finally finally showed some real guts and counter-attacked the media, very effectively I would say. And remember how fast Trump learned from his first defeat in the debate against Hillary? Trump might be a fast learner and if that is really the case, then he might learn some most useful lessons from the entire Flynn debacle.

Hopes still permitted 🙂

So hopes are still permitted. Not expectations – those are always bad. But reasonable, reality-compatible hopes. Like all humans, politicians change. If the Neocons don’t succeed in impeaching him, Trump might still end up kicking some ass, so to speak. And if they do impeach him, they will further weaken the Empire. So, all in all, I would say that while we had a very bad week we are still on good shape.

The Saker

%d bloggers like this: