A fake carrot to Iran

Source

January 30, 2021 – 20:58

TEHRAN – Joe Biden’s selection of Rob Malley as Iran envoy has sparked bitter dispute between hawks and progressives. They have launched media campaigns defending or opposing his selection. Hawks accuse him of going soft on Iran while progressives underline that the appointment of Malley will rekindle diplomacy with Iran.

But both groups fail to recognize that Malley is no friend of Iran and will work to secure the interests of the United States at the end of the day.

The first wave of criticism against the appointment of Malley came from a vague group called the National Union for Democracy in Iran (NUFDI) which sent an open letter to then-Secretary of State nominee Antony Blinken, urging him not to appoint Malley to the position of special envoy on Iran.

The group claimed that Malley was not interested in pursuing dialogue or consultation with what it called “Iranian human rights activists.”

“Mr. Malley’s record outside of government concerns us further. As head of the International Crisis Group, he has singularly focused on cultivating close relationships with Iranian government officials,” the group claimed.

Opposition to the appointment of Malley, the chief Middle East adviser in President Barack Obama’s second term and current president of the International Crisis Group, originates in his past positions on engaging Iran even though he will almost certainly act differently as a government official. In fact, being a government official is a whole lot different than being head of a non-governmental think tank, something that opponents of Malley failed to grasp.

On the other hand, progressives joined forces to defend the appointment of Malley as if he had a magical charm to put an end to U.S. malign behavior toward Iran. On Thursday, a group of these progressives put out a statement firmly defending the selection of Malley.

“Those who accuse Malley of sympathy for the Islamic Republic have no grasp of –or no interest in –true diplomacy, which requires a level-headed understanding of the other side’s motivations and knowledge that can only be acquired through dialogue,” the statement said.

The statement portrayed Malley as a man who will rekindle diplomacy with foes, identify possible areas of agreement and resolution, and, abracadabra, de-escalate tensions between Tehran and Washington as if nothing happened under Trump.

“Rob Malley is an extremely knowledgeable expert with great experience in promoting U.S. security through diplomacy rather than war. He would be an excellent choice for the role of Iran envoy,” Senator Bernie Sanders said in a tweet after Jewish Insider reported that Malley was under consideration to be the Biden administration’s envoy on Iran.

Opponents and proponents of Malley have one thing in common: both of them believe that he will facilitate talks between the governments of the U.S. and Iran. Progressives even sought to suggest that the appointment of Malley was an early carrot to Iran, implying that Iran should be grateful for that.

But this is exactly where opponents and proponents of Malley get it wrong. Judging by the Biden administration’s remarks on Iran, Malley will make it even more difficult for Iran to reach understanding with the U.S. in any future talks.

Biden officials have now made it clear that they want to expand the 2015 Iran nuclear deal – officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) -, not just simply rejoin it. And this will make any kind of negotiations between Iran and the U.S. harder than in 2015, when the two reached the JCPOA while Malley was a member of the U.S. negotiating team.

Imagine if Iran says no to a Malley demand on its missile program or regional activities in any future talks. The Biden administration would tell the whole world that it’s Iran, not the U.S., that doesn’t want to return to diplomacy.

Malley will not make decisions on Iran. Instead, he will largely be responsible for coordinating and implementing the White House Iran policy just like any other diplomat in the State Department. He will likely be a smokescreen for the Biden administration’s soft bullying against Iran. In this sense, Malley would be far from being a driving force for renewed diplomacy with Iran. He is by no means a carrot to Iran, not even a fake one.

PA/PA

Related Videos

RELATED NEWS

Being ‘Chosen’ vs. Being ‘Ordinary’ in 2020s America

 BY GILAD ATZMON

choseness vs ordinary .jpg

By Gilad Atzmon

America is divided and the rupture is so deep that Americans can’t even see across that which splits them in the middle. If there was a hope at one point that someone could unite the nation, this hope has faded away. In fact, the American mainstream media works relentlessly to sustain that cultural and even metaphysical separation. It is reasonable to determine that rather than delivering something that resembles news, the American media operates as propaganda outlets. Like in the Soviet Union, American mainstream media manufactures stories that sustain premeditated narratives.  The commitment to impartiality, truthfulness, honesty or any journalistic standard has been replaced with blind adherence to a ‘party line,’ an ‘ideology,’ a ‘worldview.’

 On one side of that dividing line we find the so-called ‘progressives’: ‘liberals’ and Identitarians who are largely associated with cities and the urban lifestyle. On the other side we find people who are conservative, nationalist and patriotic. More than often, they are slightly removed and even repulsed by urban culture.

 It doesn’t take a genius to gather that the progressive worldview is, in fact a celebration of choseness (exceptionalism). To be ‘progressive’ is to believe that someone else must be ‘reactionary.’ To be progressive is practically a severe form of self-love. As such, progressives and liberals do believe themselves to be on the right side of history and this belief legitimises their conduct, which often verges on hardcore authoritarianism. After all, ‘reason,’ progressives believe, is embedded in the core of their liberal perception.

 ‘Ordinary’ people, on the other hand, do not deny or refute reason. They just accept that reason is merely one aspect of the human existence. To be ‘ordinary’ is to acknowledge that ‘Being’ is prior to reason. Unlike the liberal and the progressive who adheres to the Cartesian Cogito, Ergo Sum; ‘I think therefore I am,’ the ‘ordinary’ accepts that you actually ‘think because you are’ (Heidegger). But it goes further: to be ‘ordinary’ is to accept that you actually ‘are where you do not think’ (Lacan).  To be ‘ordinary’ is to let the unconscious guide you to safety. To be ‘ordinary’, as such, is to accept that ‘Being’ proceeds rationality, to acknowledge that ‘Being in the World,’ transcends beyond reason and rationality. Thus, true existential understanding is when rationality comes to terms with its boundaries.  And ecstasies, as the ultimate form of existential celebration is the instant in which the reason lets off its guards and the soul is finally free to explore its true nature.   

 While the ‘chosen’ sees oneself as the shiniest product of enlightenment, the ‘ordinary’ is often unimpressed by the enlightenment and its ‘achievements.’  For the ‘ordinary’, family values, the church, the commitment to the soil and even ‘love’ as a thing in itself do not beg for rational ‘explanations’ or analytical explorations. The ‘ordinary’ does not see oneself as the ruler of the universe. The ‘ordinary’ is instead a humble visitor: he or she embraces the climate and accepts its changes. The ordinary people also seem slightly less fearful of ‘global pandemics.’ They are often made of combatant fabric and like soldiers they accept that temporality is inherent to existence.

People may oppose and mock Donald Trump for understandable reasons, but no one can deny the fact that Trump contributed more than anyone else to emphasise this sharp and unbridgeable divide between the ‘chosen’ and the ‘ordinary.’

 Trump appeared on the world’s political stage when it seemed as if the liberal agenda had prevailed. Trump’s presidential victory in 2016 revealed that half of the American people weren’t sure about the plan to ‘revise’ the ‘World Order’. Four years later, the battle zone is fully transparent. On November 3, 2020 Trump and the Republican Party were destined to disappear electorally. Many pollsters promised us a Biden/Democratic ‘landslide victory.’ This didn’t happen. The Democratic party lost seats in the house. The Republicans gained them. And if this is not bad enough, Trump increased his raw vote tally considerably, growing stronger within diverse community segments that are traditionally associated with the Democratic party. Judging by the election results, many people actually prefer to be ‘ordinary.’   

 A legal battle is taking place at the moment over issues to do with the integrity of the November election. The American Progressive media pretends that this battle isn’t taking place. While Trump’s legal team fights in the swing states not one American liberal mainstream outlet is brave enough to admit that half of America has drifted away to alternative outlets. In just a matter of days those outlets increased their ratings significantly. The ‘ordinary’ doesn’t buy into the ‘chosen’ narrative. He and she actually prefer an ordinary tale.

 And yet, it is important to grasp the role of Trump in all of this. How did this real estate tycoon emerge to become the voice of America’s Working Class? How is it possible that the Democratic Party, once upon a time the voice of working America, has become the mercenary force of Wall Street and Silicon Valley while the Republicans are now the voice of the Ordinary people and working Americans? Trump provides an answer. 

 Peculiarly enough, Trump is that which Bernie and Corbyn pretended to be but never were. Trump, himself, an exemplary ‘chosen’ character has become the favorite of the ‘ordinary.’ Trump’s communication is existentially driven. The man has managed to excite tens of millions of voters shaking his behindto the music of YMCA. As opposed to the rationalist enlightened ‘chosen’ who searches for the reasoning that connects words to meanings, the ‘ordinary’, reacts to the deafening silence between the words. Trump is a master of that deafening silence. He knows how to articulate his massage in between words. I assume Trump has never read Lacan, but he understands very well the role of the unconscious: you ARE where you do not think. You are your guts.

  That which progressives and liberals hate about Trump is exactly what more than 74 million American voters love about the man. Liberals and progressives see Trump as a reckless, failed businessman with a trail of bankruptcies and (pandemic) deaths behind him. Yet, for his admirers, these facts make Trump into an Übermensch, a resilient human hero who prevails against all odds. Like some military figures such as MacArthur, Patton, Sharon and historical state leaders such as Hitler, Stalin and Churchill, Trump, throughout his entire adult life, has been willing to risk everything to win a battle or fulfil a dream. Like the above historical figures, Trump manages to drive his troops into ecstasy yet, unlike many of them, Trump didn’t start a single war. ‘Ordinary’ people appreciate this fact as it is often them who send their sons and daughters to fight and die in the so-called ‘American wars.’

Donate

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.

The Task of ‘Sleepy Joe’ is to Put Liberal America Right Back to Sleep

November 6, 2020

Presidential nominee Joe Biden. (Photo: File)

By Jonathan Cook

At birth, all of us begin a journey that offers opportunities either to grow – not just physically, but mentally, emotionally and spiritually – or to stagnate. The journey we undertake lasts a lifetime, but there are dozens of moments each day when we have a choice to make tiny incremental gains in experience, wisdom and compassion or to calcify through inertia, complacency and selfishness.

No one can be engaged and receptive all the time. But it is important to recognize these small opportunities for growth when they present themselves, even if at any particular moment we may decide to avoid grasping them.

When we shut ourselves into the car on the commute to work, do we use it as a moment to be alone with our thoughts or to silence them with the radio or music? When we sit with friends, do we choose to be fully present with them or scroll through the news feed on our phones? When we return from a difficult day at work, do we talk the issues through with family or reach for a glass of wine, or maybe bingewatch something on TV?

Everyone needs downtime, but if every opportunity for reflection becomes downtime then we are stagnating, not growing. We are moving away from life, from being human.

Dried-out Husk

This week liberal Americans reached for that glass of wine and voted Joe Biden. Others did so much more reluctantly, spurred on by the fear of giving his opponent another four years.

Biden isn’t over the finishing line quite yet, and there are likely to be recounts, court challenges and possibly violence over the result, but he seems all but certain to be crowned the next US president. Not that that should provoke any kind of celebration. The rest of the world’s population, future generations, the planet itself – none of us had a vote – were always going to be the losers whichever candidate won.

The incumbent, Donald Trump, miscalculated, it seems, if he thought dismissing his opponent as “Sleepy Joe” would be enough to damage Biden’s electoral fortunes. True, Trump was referring to the fact that Biden is a dried-out husk of the machine politician he once was. But after four years of Trump and in the midst of a pandemic, the idea of sleeping through the next presidential term probably sounded pretty appealing to liberals. Most of them have spent their whole political lives asleep.

Four years ago, however, they were forcibly roused from their languor to protest against Donald Trump. They grew enraged by the symptom of their corrupt political system rather than by the corrupt system itself. For them, “Sleepy Joe” was just what the doctor ordered.

But it won’t be Biden doing the sleeping. It will be the liberals who cheerlead him. Biden – or perhaps Kamala Harris – will be busy making sure his corporate donors get exactly what they paid for, whatever the cost to the rest of us.

Anger and Blame

In this analogy, Trump is not the opposite of Biden, of course. He represents stagnation too, if of a different kind.

Trump channels Americans’ frustration and anger at a political and economic system they rightly see as failing them. He articulates who should be falsely blamed for their woes: be it immigrants, minorities, socialists, or the New World Order. He offers justified, if misdirected, rage in contrast to Biden’s dangerous complacency.

But however awful Trump may be, at least some of those voting for him are grappling, if mostly unconsciously, with the tension between stagnation and growth – and not of the economic kind. Unlike most liberals, who dismiss this simplistically as “populism”, some of Trump’s supporters do at least seem to recognize that the tension exists. They simply haven’t been offered a constructive alternative to anger and blame.

Ritually Disappointed

Unlike the liberals and the Trumpists, many in the US have come to understand that their political system offers nothing but stultifying stagnation for ordinary Americans by design, even if it comes in two, smartly attired flavors.

They see that the Trump camp rages ineffectually against the corporate elite, deluded into believing that a member of that very same elite will serve as their savior. And they see that the Biden camp represents an ineffectual rainbow coalition of competing social identities, deluded into believing that those divisions will make them stronger, not weaker, in the fight for economic justice. Both of these camps appear resigned to being serially – maybe ritually – disappointed.

Failure does not inspire these camps to seek change, it makes them cling all the more desperately to their failed strategies, to attach themselves even more frantically and fervently to their perceived tribe.

That is why this US election – at a moment when the need for real, systemic change is more urgent, more evident than ever before – produced not just one but two of the worst presidential candidates of all time. We are looking at exactly what happens when a whole society not only stops growing but begins to putrefy.

Enervating Divisions

Not everyone in the US is so addicted to these patterns of self-delusion and self-harm.

Large swaths of the population don’t bother to vote out of hard-borne experience. The system is so rigged against them that they don’t think it matters much which corporate party is in power. The outcome will be the same for them either way.

Others vote third party, or consciously abstain in protest at big money’s vice-like grip on the two-party system. Others, appalled at the prospect of Trump – and before him the two Bushes, and before that Ronald Reagan – were forced once again to vote for the Democratic ticket with a heavy heart. They know all too well who Biden is (a creature of his corporate donors) and what he stands for (whatever his corporate donors want). But he is slightly less monstrous than his rival, and in the US system, those are the meaningful electoral options.

And among Trump’s supporters too, there are many desperate for wholesale change. They voted for Trump because at least he paid lip service to change.

These groups – most likely a clear electoral majority – could redirect the US towards political, social, even spiritual growth, if they could find a way to come together. They suffer from their own enervating divisions.

How should they best use their numerical strength? Should they struggle to win the presidency, and if so should it be a third-party candidate or should they work within the existing party structures? What lesson should they draw from the Democratic leadership’s sabotaging – twice over – of Bernie Sanders, a candidate offering meaningful change? Is it time to adopt an entirely different strategy, rejecting traditional politics? And if so, can it be made to work when all the major institutions – from the politicians and courts to the police, intelligence services, and media – are firmly in the hands of the corporate enemy?

Terrible Reckoning

There is no real way to sleep through life or politics, and not wake up one day – usually when it is too late – realizing catastrophic mistakes were made.

As individuals, we may face that terrible reckoning on our death-beds. Empires rarely go so quietly. They fall when it is time for their citizens to learn a painful lesson about hubris. Their technological innovations come back to haunt them, as ancient Rome’s lead water-pipes supposedly once did. Or they over-extend with ambitious wars that drain the coffers of gold, as warrior-kings have discovered to their cost through the ages. Or, when the guardians of empire least expect it, “barbarians” – the victims of their crimes – storm the city gates.

The globe-spanning US empire faces the rapid emergence of all these threats on a planetary scale. Its endless wars against phantom enemies have left the US burdened with astounding debt. Its technologies, from nuclear weapons to AI, mean there can be no possible escape from a major miscalculation. And the US empire’s insatiable greed and determination to colonize every last inch of the planet, if only with our waste products, is gradually killing the life-systems we depend on.

If Biden becomes president, his victory will be a temporary win for torpor, for complacency. But a new Trump will emerge soon enough to potentize – and misdirect – the fury steadily building beneath the surface. If we let it, the pendulum will swing back and forth, between ineffectual lethargy and ineffectual rage, until it is too late. Unless we actively fight back, the stagnation will suffocate us all.

– Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). Visit his website www.jonathan-cook.net. He contributed this article to The Palestine Chronicle.

Like 2017 France, will voters choose Trump just to end a fake-leftist party?

Like 2017 France, will voters choose Trump just to end a fake-leftist party?

October 04, 2020

By Ramin Mazaheri for the Saker Blog

Since 1996 Americans have proven that they know their own country: polls show they have correctly picked the winner of the popular vote every time. Even though Trump’s approval rating is under 50% and poll aggregates show he trails by 8%, Gallup just asked who they think will win and 56% of Americans picked Trump, including 24% of Democrats, while just 40% picked Biden.

That’s a big spread, but it confirms what everybody tells me from small towns to Chicago, and I ask everyone. It’s pretty pathetic to see the fear in the eyes of some Biden supporters – you aren’t Afghans planning a wedding party during the Obama era, ok?

Given the extraordinary economic disaster and mass unemployment (in a country with no social safety net) it seems totally impossible for any incumbent to survive, but we should not forget that Democrats are the half of the duopoly which is paid to lose: they are here to provide a safety valve against real leftism (they are Bernie Sanders writ large), and to divert people away from leftist solutions to America’s lack of a social safety net with fake-leftist divisiveness.

Trump has caught coronavirus, and – I’m sure he’s saying – it’s the biggest, most stupendous, most world-famous case of corona ever! It is – Trump is finally not over-selling. But so will be the recovery, no? A recovered Trump (and a 74-year old man has just a 3% chance of dying after contracting corona) who doesn’t make Biden’s willingness for even more devastating, unbearable, technocratic lockdowns a top-two issue would prove that corona does indeed cause lasting brain damage.

The Deep State and their proxies have obviously done everything – fair or foul – they could to stop Trump, and yet I haven’t seen anyone discuss the idea that the White House corona outbreak was injected there on purpose? If anybody could and would do it – and then see Trump survive and overturn their best-laid plans – it would be US Democrats, no?

Trump has the good fortune of running against a Democratic Party which – the ousting of Bernie Sanders and the elevation of Kamala Harris shows – is dominated by a tiny cabal of well-connected Clintonistas, the corporate board members residing in one of the world’s biggest tax havens (the state of Delaware, home of Biden) and Hollywood media liberals who will get incredibly upset at my upcoming use of the term “Frenchmen” instead of “Frenchx”.

Indeed, the biggest achievement of US liberals since 2016 may merely be forcing people to use “Latinx” instead of “Latino/a”. At the “China: Isn’t It Time to Turn To Us?” first presidential debate I don’t recall Biden uttering the word “impeachment”, and he definitely didn’t talk about Russiagate – Democrats can’t possibly run on their own pathetic record?

Yes, the US is such a politically-ignorant country that Trump can accuse “Corporate Joe” Biden of being a “radical socialist” and actually find believers, but Western fake-leftist parties are increasingly being punished by voters for their “right-wing economics and right-wing foreign policy but with political correctness” platform.

It’s amazing that the Clintonista faction wasn’t forced from power after stunningly losing to a reality show star in 2016, but if they snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again will there finally be a fair reckoning?

Could defeat in November break up the ossified, out-of-touch and certainly ineffective Democratic Party?

There is a recent Western precedent for such an abrupt exit: the Socialist Party of France.

In 2017 they were rejected so emphatically that their perpetual post-WWII duopoly-dominance became quickly irrelevant; the fact that in 2012 they won both the presidency and 36% more seats than any other party in Parliament became quickly irrelevant. What cost the Socialist Party was the patsy Francois Hollande’s appalling backtracking on his campaign promise to end austerity – it finally became totally clear to Frenchmen that the Socialist Party should be called the “Neoliberal Party of Brussels”.

The French left remains in total disarray, as they should be, given how they refused to listen to their constituents and how they proved themselves to be elitist, duplicitous and amoral technocrats. The trend in France is for the Green Party to be given a chance next, as they are the only other not-yet-discredited option other than the tiny true left and the “paper tiger” far-right.

Yes, unlike the US the French political spectrum contains more than just two parties, but the bigger difference is that the French voter was smart enough to be out for blood in 2017: the #1 reason people voted for Emmanuel Macron was to block Marine Le Pen, but the #2 most-stated reason was to sweep both mainstream parties out from entrenched power – it worked spectacularly well against the Socialist Party.

The United States is far more more prone to hysterical fear-mongering than the cool and politically-experienced French, and “never Trump derangement syndrome” does help explain why there isn’t a similar “cast your vote to kill the mainstream party” movement like France had in 2017. Of course, votes for Trump in the 2016 Republican primaries were made for precisely this reason – this is totally forgotten/covered-up/ignored/misunderstood in 2020 USA.

Such a movement is certainly good sense (which American leftists rarely have), though, as well as political justice.

Yet it seems impossible to imagine someone like Nancy Pelosi – eating her $13 ice cream while getting an illegal high-class haircut – wouldn’t be made the fall-guy (“fall-guyx”?) for yet another Democratic debacle, but was there any change whatsoever after Hillary’s loss?

Is there any doubt that a Biden win wouldn’t see Hillary taking a top cabinet post, replete with royal re-coronation media coverage? Hillary’s certain return is never, ever discussed here because it would obviously turn many voters away from the Democrats in disgust, even though she’s already said she’s ready to join Biden’s administration. A vote for Biden is indeed a vote for Hillary.

But when did Democratic Party leadership ever care about being popular among the masses?

They don’t have to care because the reality is that the American system is incredibly undemocratic at the upper level. Maybe at the local levels we can talk about a face-off between a small town’s two richest lawyers as being a marginally democratic election, but at the top the American system is a most-rigid Politburo dominated by politicians, lobbyist-connected generals and billionaires who never even paid lip service to ideals which weren’t grasping Western individualism, self-righteous arrogance and realpolitik greed.

Forty years ago Democrats in Detroit and in the farming Delta may have said things which condemned those obvious flaws in the neo-aristocratic (bourgeois) US model, but now Democrats only say such things at election time. Take, for example, the discussions about African-American reparations during the Democratic primaries – LOL, no top Democrat has talked about that since Biden’s victory, and they won’t again… until 2024.

Cynically insist all you want that the Democratic Party, the oldest voter-based party in the world, is too entrenched, too privileged and has had too long to game the system in order to ever pay the price for such phony politics, but history says otherwise – just ask France’s fake-leftists.

Ramin Mazaheri is currently covering the US elections. He is the chief correspondent in Paris for PressTV and has lived in France since 2009. He has been a daily newspaper reporter in the US, and has reported from Iran, Cuba, Egypt, Tunisia, South Korea and elsewhere. He is the author of Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism’as well as ‘I’ll Ruin Everything You Are: Ending Western Propaganda on Red China’, which is also available in simplified and traditional Chinese.

قراءة في المشهد السياسيّ الأميركيّ عشيّة الانتخابات… السيناريوات المرتقبة (2)

زياد حافظ

في الجزء السابق شرحنا عوامل الاضطراب السياسي التي تشهده الولايات المتحدة عشية الانتخابات المقبلة في تشرين الثاني/نوفمبر 2020. وحالة الاضطراب تتفاقم حيث التشنّج الذي يسود الفريقين المتنافسين ينذر بعواقب وخيمة قد تدمّر بنية النظام وحتى أسس الكيان الأميركي. قد يعتبر البعض أن هذا الكلام مبالَغ به، ولكن هذا ما نقرأه في العديد من المواقع الإلكترونية ومن آراء يبديها مسؤولون سابقون وباحثون مرموقون. والخطورة تكمن في السيناريوهات المرتقبة لليوم التالي بعد الانتخابات.

أعرب الرئيس الأميركي دونالد ترامب في أكثر من مناسبة كما أعرب مسؤولون في الحزب الديمقراطي عن عدم تقبّله (تقبّلهم!) لنتائج الانتخابات إذا أدت إلى هزيمته أو هزيمتهم! قد يكون هذا الكلام نوعاً من التهويل لشدّ عصب المناصرين، لكن هناك سيناريوات حقيقية فد تفرض نفسها ليلة الانتخاب وتتراوح في الحد الأدنى بين عدم اعلان من هو الفائز بسبب التأخير في فرز أصوات الناخبين الذين اختاروا الاقتراع عبر البريد وبين حد أقصى يرفض النتائج ويطعن بها في المحاكم الاتحادية ما يكرّس الفراغ في رأس الهرم. هذا من باب الواقع الذي يحظى بشبه إجماع عند مختلف المراقبين والمحلّلين عند الطرفين المتنافسين. فما هي السيناريوات الممكنة في هذه الحال؟

السيناريو الأول هو وجود فراغ في رأس الهرم السياسي. لم يلحظ الدستور الأميركي لآلية لفض نوع كهذا من النزاع لأن الآباء المؤسسين لم يعتقدوا في يوم من الأيام أن الجمهورية الفتية قد تصل إلى هذا المأزق. الدستور الأميركي حدّد آلية لانتقال الحكم في حال حدوث فراغ مفاجئ في رأس السلطة. فنائب الرئيس يتولّى زمام الأمور حتى نهاية الولايات وتقام عندئذ انتخابات. في حال حدوث فراغ في الرئاسة ونيابة الرئاسة يلحظ الدستور أن رئيس مجلس الممثلين يتولّى زمام الأمور. في حال شغور أو غياب ذلك يتولى رئيس مجلس الشيوخ الموقت (رئيس الأكثرية) لأن دستورياً نائب رئيس الجمهورية هو رئيس مجلس الشيوخ الذي يفصل في التصويت في حال تعادل الأصوات في أي ملف أو قضية مطروحة. وفي حال غياب وأو شغور ذلك المنصب يتولى وزير الخارجية المسؤولية وفي حال غياب وزير الخارجية وهناك سلّم من التراتبية بين الوزراء في تولّي المسؤولية في حال الشغور. لكن جميع تلك الإجراءات تفترض أن الكونغرس بغرفتيه أي مجلس الشيوخ ومجلس الممثلين قائم. لكن في الحالة التي ستحصل فإن إمكانية تولّي رئيس مجلس الممثلين، في هذه الحال نانسي بيلوسي، قد لا تحصل لأن الطعن أو الطعون في نتائج الانتخابات قد لا تنحصر في الرئاسة بل أيضاً في مجلس الممثلين ومجلس الشيوخ. حال التشنج التي وصلت إليه الولايات المتحدة تجعل من هذا الاحتمال إمكانية حقيقية. أي بمعنى آخر هناك احتمال حقيقي ومرتقب بأن يحصل الفراغ بسبب عدم حسم أو قبول نتائج الانتخابات.

في السيناريو الثاني، ينحصر التنازع فقط حول منصب الرئاسة ويتولّى عندئذ رئيس مجلس الممثلين الرئاسة الموقتة حتى تحسم المحكمة الدستورية العليا نتائج الانتخاب. المحكمة العليا هي مكوّنة اليوم من خمسة محافظين وأربعة ليبراليين في ميولهم الفكرية. ليسوا منتسبين إلى أي حزب لكن من الواضح أن الميل المحافظ يسيطر عموماً على قرارات وأحكام المحكمة. لكن حكمت المحكمة مؤخراً في قضية مثيرة للجدل حول المتحوّلين جنسياً لصالح الموقف الليبرالي ما أدهش الجميع. الصوت المرجّح كان صوت رئيس المحكمة الذي يُعرف عنه أنه محافظ. وهناك تساؤلات حول ذلك “التصويت” الذي يؤكّد على “استقلالية” القرار بينما البعض يعتبر أن ذلك التصويت هو لمنع الاتهام بالانحياز السياسي في فصل قضية الطعن في الانتخابات الرئاسية. إذاً، في مطلق الأحوال يعود إلى المحكمة الدستورية مسؤولية الفصل. لكن ليس هناك من ضمانة أن المتنافسين سيقبلون بالحكم ونعود عند ذلك الحين إلى السيناريو الأول.

السيناريو الثالث، وهو الأكثر خطورة، هو عدم تقبّل أي من الفريقين النتائج مهما كانت المرجعيات. ماذا في تلك الحال؟ هذا يعني أزمة دستورية، فأزمة نظام، وفي آخر المطاف أزمة كيان. في هذا السياق نشير إلى تحذير بول كريغ روبرتس، مساعد وزير الخزانة السابق في عهد رونالد ريغان، وهو اقتصادي معروف له مؤلفات عدّة وصاحب مدوّنة واسعة الانتشار. تحذير روبرتس واضح: الولايات المتحدة لديها شهران قبل أن تنهار بسبب الفراغ الذي سيحصل بسبب عدم قبول نتائج الانتخابات. كاتب آخر مات اهرهت يذهب أبعد من ذلك ويشير إلى سيناريوات حرب في عدد من مراكز الأبحاث حول احتمالات انقلاب عسكري ضد الرئيس الأميركي في حال رفض خروجه من البيت الأبيض.

مركز “مشروع التماسك الانتقاليّ” مركز أبحاث مستحدث (2019) وتموّله وفقاً للباحثة ويتني واب مجموعة مكوّنة من كلنتون، جورج سوروس، وعدد من رؤساء الشركات الكبرى كفايس بوك وميكروسوفت وغوغل ولينكدين واي باي على سبيل المثال. واجهة ذلك المركز روزا بروكس محاضرة في جامعة جورج تاون والعقيد لورانس ويلكرسون المدير السابق لكولن بأول عندما كان وزيراً للخارجية. أما المساهمون في البحوث لذلك المركز فيه ثلّة من كبار المحافظين الجدد كوليام كريستول ودافيد فروم. أنشئ المركز لمواجهة التحدّيات التي فرضتها الثورة التكنولوجية في التواصل وتأثيرها على المجتمعات. لكن بالفعل أنشئ لغرض واحد وهو لخلق مناخات ثورية ملوّنة ولتهيئة الأجواء لانقلاب عسكري ضد ترامب. وقد تمّت “تجربة” ذلك المشروع عبر نشاط أحد العاملين بها في حملة لإقصاء برني سندرز من الفوز في التسمية الترشيح عن الحزب الديمقراطي. المسؤول عن تلك الحملة الناجحة وفقاً لويتني واب هو ريد هوفمان. كما أن المموّلين الآخرين كاريك شميدت رئيس شركة غوغل وبيار اوميدفار رئيس شركة أي باي من المقرّبين جدّا لبيل وهيلاري كلنتون وكانوا أيضاً وراء الإطاحة ببرني سندرز لمصلحة جوزيف بايدن. والآن يستعدّون للإطاحة بدونالد ترامب.

ما يعزّز فرص ذلك المشروع هو العلاقة الوطيدة بين القيادات العسكرية العليا في البنتاغون ومجمع المؤسسات التابعة للمجمع العسكري الصناعي الأمني والمالي والمعلوماتي. تفيد دراسة أجريت مؤخراً ونشرته محطّة “روسيا اليوم” أن في فترة 2008-2018 تمّ توظيف 380 ضابطاً رفيع المستوى في شركات مقاولة في الدفاع، من بينهم 68 لواء و32 أميرالاً ونائب أميرال. ويضيف الباحث مات اهرهت أن عدداً من القيادات العاملة في الجيش الأميركي معروف بتشدّدهم تجاه الحروب ويعارضون بشكل واضح الرئيس الأميركي لقراراته بالانسحاب من أفغانستان والعراق وسورية. هذا ما دفع الرئيس الأميركي للتصريح الأخير له بحق المؤسسة العسكرية أن القيادة العسكرية تكرهه بينما القاعدة أي الجنود يحبّونه. ويعتبر أن مصلحة القيادات العسكرية هي فوق مصلحة البلاد ويصرّون على التورّط في حروب لا منفعة منها للولايات المتحدة سوى إثراء الشركات المقاولة التي تجني أرباحاً طائلة.

بالتوازي مع تهيئة الأجواء لإجراء انقلاب عسكري في حال استمر الرئيس الأميركي في البيت الأبيض هناك أيضاً خطر آخر يهدّد التماسك الداخلي الأميركي. لقد حذر مدير المكتب الاتحادي للتحقيقات (اف بي أي) في جلسة استماع في الكونغرس من تنامي الميليشيات المسلّحة من البيض والسود وأن الاحتكاكات قد تحصل في أي لحظة. في السياق نفسه عرضت محطة أي تي في البريطانية تقريراً مصوّراً للميليشيات السود التي تنتشر في العديد من المدن الأميركية.

ويعتبر العديد من المراقبين الأميركيين أن تصاعد أعمال الشغب والعنف أعمال مبرمجة هدفها تهيئة مناخ لفرض الأحكام العرفية وتبرير تدخل القوّات المسلّحة لفرض أمر واقع سياسي جديد. هذا ما يحذّر منها أيضاً بول كريغ روبرتس وآخرون خاصة أن التقارير تتكاثر حول محاضرات يلقيها ضبّاط كبار حول ضرورة إمساك الوضع.

سردنا هذه المعلومات وليست كلّها في ذلك الموضوع وفحوى تقارير حول المناخ السائد في الولايات المتحدة للتأكيد أن الخريف سيكون ساخناً للغاية وقديمتد إلى الربيع. ليس بمقدور أحد أن يتكهّن عما ستسفر عليه الأمور وإن كان بعض المحلّلين لا يخفون تشاؤمهم حول تماسك الولايات المتحدة. ليس في الأفق من يستطيع أن يعيد توحيد الولايات المتحدة في ظل أزمة اقتصادية بنيوية وحالة اجتماعية متفسّخة يسودها التعصّب والعنصرية. كما أن الطبقة السياسية في معظمها مرتبطة بالاوليغارشية المالية والمجمع العسكري الصناعي والأمني والمالي وبالتالي التغيير من الداخل قد يصبح مستعصياً. وانهيار الدولة يعني انهيار المجتمع. فالدولة أقوى من المجتمع في الولايات المتحدة وبالتالي المصير سيكون مجهولاً. الولايات المتحدة تدخل اليوم في حقبة لا استقرار بنيوياً قد ينسف مكانتها في العالم إن لم ينسف وجودها في الداخل.

*كاتب وباحث اقتصادي سياسي والأمين العام السابق للمؤتمر القومي العربي.

قراءة في المشهدالسياسي الأميركي عشية الانتخابات (1)

Weekly China Newsbrief and Sitrep

Weekly China Newsbrief and Sitrep

September 16, 2020

By Godfree Roberts selected from his extensive weekly newsletter : Here Comes China

This week’s selection includes a separate explanation on just how the Chinese Communist Party and Government operates.  For those that visit these weekly Sitreps to learn, this may put an end to the regular discussion items of just how bad the CCP is.  You did know that China has six political parties, did you?  The people that I’ve consulted say the following:  China’s system works for China.  We do not suggest you adopt our system, so, there is no reason for you to insist we adopt yours.

From a regular Twitter Feed by ShangaiPanda, here is how it actually works, by meritocracy.  What this means is that Xi Jinping for example already had 40 years experience in governing, before he was both selected, and elected to his position.

From Godfree’s newsletter which is just brimming with interesting items this week, we’ve selected items about:

  • space,
  • Islam, communism and the BRI,
  • trade war and trade deficit,
  • and a highly educational piece by ‘Chairman Rabbit’, who analyses America from a Chinese perspective.

On studying China it is good to remember that unlike many other countries, China as a country holds together from two perspectives, a long lasting civilizational unity, as well as a sovereign state.


 Space – high technology that is green technology

China has safely landed a reusable spacecraft which it claims will provide a “convenient and inexpensive” method of getting to and from space. The craft launched on September 4th and landed on September 6th after spending two days in orbit, according to the state-run Xinhua News Agency. Very little is known about the spacecraft, including even its basic design. There are no picture or renders of the craft, but there have been rumors it is a spaceplane similar to the Air Force’s X-37B. A Chinese military source told the South China Morning Post they could not provide details on the mission but that “maybe you can take a look at the US X-37B.”[MORE]

Islam, Communism and the BRI

The significance of having 52 Muslim countries (37.6%) that comprise 87.5 per cent of World Muslims in the BRI alliance, is not lost on the United States and its allies who are not particularly pro-Islam, which may explain their sudden interest to ‘care’ about the plight of Muslims in Xinjiang! Soon after the Bolshevik uprisings, Communism and Islam seemed destined to liberate the Muslim world from European Imperialism, but that was not to be due to their ideological differences. This presented an opportunity to the United States and its allies, where they coopted anti-Communist Jihadism to disrupt Communism.  This had the unintended consequence of being the impetus for China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which presented the U.S. and its allies with new challenges.

Soon after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, Communism and Islam were the impetus for revolutions against European imperialism in Egypt, Iraq, India, Caucasus and Central Asia, and the Indonesian Archipelago. However, divergent views about Communism proved divisive among Muslims (who are also quite divergent in their theological interpretations of Islam) and this quasi- ideological alliance was all over by the onset of the Cold War.  Those irrevocable divisions may have been due to the essence of Islam’s socio-economic and political system.  It is more consultative (‘Shoura’ or democratic theocracy) and entrepreneurial in nature, which is more compatible with social democracy and capitalism, than with communism’s autocratic state planned economy.

The other reason for such failure is the proactive role of the United States (and some Western Europeans, like Britain and France) in using Christian missionaries and NGOs in intelligence gathering while spreading Christianity in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and South America. In the 1970s, it was revealed that the CIA sponsored missionaries in Kerala and Nagaland to not only block the advance of Communism in India, but also to establish sufficient tensions between India and China and prevent any regional stability that continues to our present day.

In the 1980s, the CIA’s material support to the Afghan Mujahideen (and by default the Afghan Arabs, like Osama Bin Laden and his followers, who were rounded up from the different Arab and Muslim countries by their intelligence services and sent to Afghanistan, via Pakistan for their paramilitary training by the ISI, in the hope that they would never come back) only exacerbated extremist violence ever since. In the 1990s, the predominantly Muslim former Soviet Republics of Central Asia; Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and other Islamic countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan opened their doors to Saudi-sponsored Wahhabi Islam (probably with the ‘blessings’ of the CIA).

This resulted in an upsurge of Islamist fundamentalism and separatist movements in central Asia, like al-Qaeda affiliated Turkestan Islamic Party(TIP), Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT) and Harkat-ul-Jihad-al-Islami (HuJI), which have presented a challenge to China and others in the region. Since the rise of anti-Communist Jihadism in the 1980s and its coopetition by the Anglo-Americans to disrupting Communism ever since may have been the impetus for China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI).

The $8 trillion investment by China in its bold, innovative and strategic Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) alliances with 138 countries comprising 51.7% of world GDP offers an infrastructure backbone of maritime, land and digital trade alliances. The BRI alliances represent 4.8 billion people (61.7%) of the world population.  Of which an estimated 1.4 billion (29.2%) identify as Muslim and are part of the 52 member countries of the Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC), including all 22 Arab countries.

China’s BRI strategic alliances with Arabic and Muslim countries can only help neutralise the existential threat of global Islamist fundamentalism in the long-term by spreading economic prosperity and alleviating poverty. Also, it will not only bring prosperity and stability to China’s underdeveloped north-western part (Xinjiang holds 1.33% of China’s population and contributes 1.35% to China’s GDP), but also to (its ideological partner in the new world order) Russia, and other BRI partners on its western border.

Coupled with technological innovations in global cross-border trade and finance, the BRI projects would no doubt accelerate global economic growth and revive China’s historical legacy in boosting entrepreneurships without compromising necessary protections of the weak. Those infrastructure-driven alliances are building a global community with a shared future for mankind.  This is so important at a time when our world is divided by poverty, crippling national debts and the rise of ultra-nationalism.

The clash of civilizations, anti-(Muslim)-refugees’ sentiment and Islamophobia are just symptoms of the rise in white supremacism and alt-right extremism sweeping the Anglo-American and European nations. Those groups subscribe to a conspiracy theory of cultural and population replacement or nativism, where white European populations are being replaced with non-Europeans (predominantly Muslim Arabs from Syria and elsewhere) due to the complicity of ‘replacist’ elites.

For example, the ‘Génération Identitaire’ (GI) movement in France, which considers itself a ‘defender’ of the European civilization has affiliated youth groups in Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Slovenia and the United Kingdom.  This heightened sense of ultra-nationalism is driving Western democratic politics away from economic concerns, in favour of issues related to culture and identity. No doubt, Anglo-American and European anxieties about China’s technological, economic and geopolitical dominance may be rooted in their innate fears about being displaced by an Asian culture and the potential spread of Socialism with Chinese characteristics to the 138 countries that joined the BRI alliances, after having spent a good part of over 70 years fighting Communism.

America’s continued rise as a world power—from the 1890s through the Cold War—and its bid to extend its hegemony deep into the twenty-first century through a fusion of cyberwar, space warfare, trade pacts, and military alliances – is now limited by the reality that it has to dismantle China’s BRI alliances as it did to the USSR. This is why the ‘five eyes’ alliance is going on the offensive with (a) sanctions and visa restrictions for Chinese officials, (b) bans on China’s technological 5G innovations (Huawei, Tik Tok and WeChat under the guise of ‘National Security’ concerns), (c) tariffs trade wars, and (d) a particular focus on ‘human rights’ in Hong Kong and Xinjiang.

The significance of having 52 Muslim countries (37.6%) that comprise 87.5 per cent of World Muslims in the BRI alliance, is not lost on the United States and its allies who are not particularly pro-Islam, which may explain their sudden interest to ‘care’ about the plight of Muslims in Xinjiang! Thus, it is not unreasonable to conclude that the sole purpose of those disruptive policies by the “five-eyes” alliance is to intensify the global anti-China sentiment that is already aggravated due to COVID-19, and to inflame Muslim sentiment in particular, so as to torpedo China’s largest economic and geopolitical Belt and Road alliances.[MORE] [George Mickhail is an LSE trained academic and a geopolitical risk analyst with 30 years’ experience in major global accounting firms and business schools.]

Trade War and Trade Deficit

The US trade deficit with China widened in July – an embarrassing situation for President Trump, who Taiwan’s Liberty Times said had been left  with a ‘green face’ (a crude expression that makes plain this is a bad outcome for him). When the US President campaigned four years ago, he strongly accused China of seizing American wealth in what he hailed as “the biggest theft in history.” After his election, he maintained this position against China. However, the latest data will hardly please him. The United States had a $31.6 billion trade deficit with China in July, which was an 11.5% increase from June. The paper noted that before the outbreak of the coronavirus, the US trade deficit with China was narrowing, but it has gradually expanded since the epidemic spread. Data released by the US Census Bureau on Thursday showed that the trade deficit with China in Q2 increased by 36.8% compared to Q1. The deficit in July was 4.36% larger than that in July 2016.[MORE]

‘Chairman Rabbit’ Analyzes America

Editor’s Note: Tu Zhuxi (Chairman Rabbit) is the nom de plume of Ren Yi, a Harvard-educated Chinese blogger who has amassed more than 1.6 million followers on Weibo who seek out his political commentary, much of which falls under a genre we might facetiously call “America-watching.” 

Today, I scrolled through the interview Professor Ezra Feivel Vogel gave with the Global Times: “90 year-old Professor Vogel: Unfortunately, there is a possibility of armed confrontation between the United States and China.” The veteran professor—who has researched China and East Asia all his life and promoted the development of ties between the United States and China—conveyed intense unease after witnessing two years of sharp downturn in Sino-U.S. relations under the Trump Administration. He could not bear not to air his concerns. 

This interview comes at an opportune time. As you can see, I have excerpted a short comment from the interview. This excerpt perfectly echoes the content I have wanted to expand on these last two days:

Vogel: There is a new article in the Atlantic magazine by James Fallows that gives the most comprehensive explanation of what has happened. And it clearly is the Trump administration.

Before the coronavirus, there had been plans in earlier administrations for dealing with an epidemic. We had a good overall plan. Trump did not use those plans at all. He even acted when he first heard about the coronavirus pandemic as if there was not a big problem. So things were delayed. It clearly is Trump’s responsibility.

At the time of writing, the United States has around 3.8 million confirmed cumulative cases, 140,000 deaths, and a daily increase of about 64 thousand cases. The diagnosis of experts and intellectuals around the United States: this is all due to the Trump Administration.

First of all, the United States’ so-called “good overall plan” for epidemic response was targeted towards a type of infectious disease that resembles the flu in infectiousness, hazard, and lethality. The United States after all has quite a few documentaries and special television programming about pandemics, and every year in every corner of the country drills are held about pandemics, but all of these were with the assumptions of a flu-like disease. COVID-19 was not within the expectations of an American plan for epidemic response, and indeed was beyond the response plan of every country in regard to an infectious disease with respiratory transmission. COVID-19 is an especially potent epidemic, a disease with an extraordinarily high death rate. The epidemic response plan that the United States currently had in place was entirely insufficient for COVID-19. Dr. Anthony Fauci brought up this topic several times in the last few months, especially in the early stages of the epidemic: the American system and design is either insufficient or entirely ineffectual against COVID-19. Dr. Fauci was speaking only from the standpoint of public hygiene and healthcare system and his analysis did not broaden past these considerations.

I have been following the news, media, and commentaries of the U.S. right and left. Criticisms of the epidemic response have generally been from Democratic Party, anti-Trump, and/or liberal-aligned intellectuals. Even after several months, I have rarely encountered essays or discussions that analyze in-depth the full extent of the difficulties facing the U.S. COVID-19 response by synthesizing broader observations on the nation’s political system, society, governance, culture, and economy.

Basically, all the analyses have taken the question and subsumed it under the issue of “political leadership”—usually pointing towards the President, the White House, and state governors. The majority of these analyses lay blame onto the very person of Trump.

Basically, all the analyses have taken the question and subsumed it under the issue of “political leadership”—usually pointing towards the President, the White House, and state governors. The majority of these analyses lay blame onto the very person of Trump.

According to this logic, the reason for the U.S.’s weak response to the epidemic is Trump and Trump alone. If only there was only another person in charge, the U.S. could have defeated COVID-19.

Readers who follow me should know my methods well: I have always begun my analyses from a sociological point of view. How could the U.S. use influenza as the primary lens to understand COVID-19, and how did this understanding influence the U.S.’s subsequent responsive actions? I have since wrote many essays on this topic, for example my April 1st, 2020 essay: “Can the United States Shut Down Entire Cities and Thoroughly Practice Social Distancing Like China? A Discussion of American Exceptionalism” (link in Chinese).

In that piece, I argue that due to the U.S. political and legal system, enacting a comprehensive and stringent social distancing program, including measures such as quarantining cities, is simply not possible.

In the next few months, I will continue my analysis and extend towards the political level. Not too long ago, I collected a few writings into this listicle: “13 Reasons for the Ineffectual Response towards COVID-19 of the United States and ‘Society Construction’ During an Epidemic” (link in Chinese).

I summarized thirteen reasons for the U.S.’s weak response to the epidemic:

  1. Government system: the separation of powers between the federal, state, and local governments
  2. Government system: the separation of powers between the legislative, executive, and judiciary bodies
  3. Wide racial and class disparities
  4. A culture that understands individualism as a cardinal virtue, even to the point of opposing social or collective interests
  5. An overwhelmingly one-sided emphasis on political and civil rights
  6. “Gun culture”: the spirit of Manifest Destiny, rugged individualism, and militarism
  7. “Bible culture” and anti-intellectualism
  8. A pluralistic society without common understanding or consensuses
  9. A government and media that intensifies rather than ameliorates social tensions
  10. A values system that does not respect the elderly and does not assign elders special protections
  11. Family structures which are not suited to fighting against COVID-19
  12. The precarious economic situation of the United States’ middle and lower classes (like walking on a tightrope, i.e. living from paycheck to paycheck or credit problems)
  13. Other cultural factors, such as resistance against wearing masks

There are certainly many more reasons than the ones I have listed. But what I wish to express is that the U.S.’s weak response to the epidemic is the combined result of political, legal, social, cultural, economic, and other factors. The White House, as one of the holders of broad public authority (the executive section of the federal government), has in fact significantly limited power over this broader structural context.

The U.S. cannot manage stringent social distancing, large-scale quarantines of cities, nor restrictions on interstate travel. Health QR codes on mobile devices are entirely impossible with citizens’ insistence on privacy protections. A vast society led primarily by individualism and anti-intellectualism can hardly speak of epidemic management. These factors are not problems that can be resolved with the changing of a president. I believe that even if it were Obama, Hillary, or Biden as president, they would not be able to reverse the tide of the battle against COVID-19, even if they would be slightly more effective—for instance if they had taken the initiative and emphasized the importance of masks. This is because fighting an epidemic does not depend on the lobbying or practices of a president, but rather on the public health and prevention system of an entire country, one which from top to bottom must act in unity and move together. Public authority must comprehensively, effectively, and consistently implement policies (such that each locality will not have its own variant policies), and also cannot allow any level of the judiciary to interfere in the problems of any level of government. On the balance between citizen and society, preparations must absolutely be made to cede rights to the collective. “Political and civil rights” must in these times yield way.

The very design of U.S. political and legal institutions is meant to inhibit collective rights. Balance of powers is at the core of American governance. Political and civil rights are the bedrock of American political values. To deny these values equates to the very denial of the U.S.’s fundamental being.

The very design of U.S. political and legal institutions is meant to inhibit collective rights.

Therefore, to take the U.S.’s weak response to the epidemic and shove it at “political leadership” and at the feet of Trump is not merely skin-deep, but avoids the real problem and focuses on easy answers. It is simply not looking at the substance of the situation.

For several months I have followed U.S. political commentaries on the left and right, and I can confirm I have not seen any analysis of depth. The overwhelming majority of analyses are overly narrow and concrete, pointing at an individual perhaps. Rare is the person who can leap outside the U.S. political structure and carry out a detailed assessment from a third point-of-view. Why? I summarize two reasons:

(1) Americans are sort of like the baffled participant in a game; sometimes the onlookers see more of the game than the players. Americans honestly believe that the American system is exceptional, the best in the world. This is an earnest and steadfast faith, an authentic “self-confidence in path, self-confidence in principles, self-confidence in system, self-confidence in culture” [the “Four Self-Confidences” of Xi Jinping Thought]. They simply cannot bring themselves to doubt or oppose the American system. Since the American system is perfect, once the epidemic creates problems, by the process of elimination, Americans reason that the problem must stem only from electing the right or wrong politician. From this line of thought, pick out the one who has the most power: this is Trump’s fault. After him, perhaps we blame the governor of Florida, DeSantis. This is about as deep as the majority of Americans introspect.

(2) Criticizing the American system is a serious political error. It’s taboo. This is because it is anti-American, “unpatriotic,” “un-American.” It is a stance that doubts the very foundations of the United States. So when there is an elephant in the room in regards to the American system, everybody can see it but dare not speak up. I believe that the majority of people do not even see this elephant in the room because they have been so thoroughly brainwashed by the perfection of the American system. It is only a minority of people who can see this. These people very well could be Democrats or liberal intellectuals. This small number of people aware of reality cannot point out the elephant, however, even if they can see it. This is because pointing it out cannot change the situation on the ground, yet will still result in censure and criticism. One would rather polish a cannonball and lob it at Trump.

In summary, if we compare China with the United States, we would discover an interesting phenomenon.

When Chinese people criticize, they are accustomed to focusing criticisms on the system. “Systemic problem.” “Systemic-ism .” Even though there are indeed problems at the individual level, these problems are thoroughly rooted in the larger system. “Because the system produced this type of person,” “because the system could not restrain or check this particular person.” At any rate, any analysis fundamentally leads back to systemic problems.

When American people criticize, it is focusing the problem onto the physical body of an individual politician. It is not the system at fault, because the system is already perfect or close to perfect, so it can only be a problem birthed from the politician: this pundit’s personality is bad, their abilities did not cut it. All criticisms are of this sort. With that, if an impotent pundit is continuously elected or re-elected—for instance if Trump is re-elected, then this is a problem of the voters. But at this time, the analysis simply cannot proceed further. In the calculus of American political values, the political values of every person are equal: one cannot belittle the voters. In 2016 during the presidential race, Hillary Clinton belittled Trump’s supporters and faced an overwhelmingly negative backlash, costing her the ultimate price (this could perhaps be why she lost the presidential race). What is left then is to criticize the political influence of the media, campaign funding, and interest groups. But even here the analysis must end. Within the proscribed limits of the dialogue, it is easy to enter into another level of analysis—for example, could it be that the U.S. electoral system has fundamental faults? If one gets to this level, it touches upon the very body of U.S. democracy and its electoral system. One would be entering a live mine zone, teetering on the edge of political error.

In this sort of environment, Americans naturally will avoid hard problems and search for easy answers. They will not explore systemic problems, but rather focus their entire attention on electoral solutions.

Under this existing electoral process, one can only, perhaps, push their preferred candidate onto the political stage and wish only for their own candidate to ascend to the office, so that in the next few years that candidate can advance their own political programs and thereby protect the interests of the candidate’s supporters. In this sort of environment, Americans naturally will avoid hard problems and search for easy answers. They will not explore systemic problems, but rather focus their entire attention on electoral solutions.

Therefore, American politics are entirely driven by the short-term. They will look at long-term problems as a certainty before avoiding them, exerting only in order to resolve short-term problems. Even though there are scholars and intellectuals who can produce long-term analyses of wide historical and societal scale, this sort of analysis remains locked in the library and Ivory Towers, away from the stain of political practice.

The American “Revolution”

In the week after the conclusion of the 2016 election in the United States, Democratic primary candidate Bernie Sanders published his book Our Revolution. As everybody knows, 2016 was the contest between Trump and Clinton. Yet Bernie Sanders was the more extreme, more left (called a “socialist”) candidate of the Democratic Party, who was ultimately knocked out by the mainstream Clinton in the primaries. But he retains many fans among the Democratic Party’s “progressive wing”, including many youth. In his book, he introduced his thoughts as well as his explanations and analyses on all sorts of issues of the day, including the wealth gap, race relations, environmental problems, healthcare problems, the problem of media and interest groups binding politics, gender pay disparity, and the problem of Wall Street and big corporations.

Sanders’ diagnosis of American problems intersects with Trump: it is only that while Sander’s target audience was quite broad (for example, minorities, vulnerable groups, and women), Trump’s was much more parochial. On similar problems, Trump would provide right-wing resolutions to his limited audience of voters, but Sanders provided left-wing resolutions to his broad audiences—because of this, he was smeared as a “socialist”. Of course, during Sander’s entire campaign, there remained an unspeakable doubt: that is, can a big-city Jewish American ‘elite’ from Brooklyn, New York actually win the votes to be elected as President of the United States? This same problem may apply to Michael Bloomberg. To date, it seems this question answers in the negative.

But I do not wish to talk about Sanders’ propositions or ethnicity, but rather his slogan: “Our Revolution”.

“Our Revolution” has now become a left-wing action organization with roots in the 2016 Bernie Sanders campaign, and it continues to organize movements within the Democratic Party and in other broader social contexts.

“Our Revolution” has three key actions: “Win on our issues,” “Transform the Democratic Party,” and “Elect progressives up and down the ballot.”

It is of note that Sanders is the most mainstream American politician to date to support the idea of a revolution. However, what I wish to point out to Chinese readers is that this concept of “revolution” is nothing more than propagating his own thoughts and policy proposals to a wider audience, in order to get his own people elected and achieve electoral success himself.

People more familiar with Chinese political discourse should know the difference between “revolution” and “reform.”

Revolution is overturning and starting over again: toppling the old system and the old order, and constructing a new system. Revolution is often violent, of great force, compelled, and refuses to abide by the present system. From the standpoint of Marxism, revolution is class struggle, a fiery worker’s movement. From the standpoint of Leninism, it is a violent movement. From the standpoint of Mao Zedong:

“A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”

In the Chinese context, and indeed in the majority of cultural and social contexts, “revolution” is an intense action: revolution demands the overthrowing of the present system. Abiding by the present system, or moving within the current system and order, can only be reform.

But it is different in the United States. In the United States, challenging and overthrowing the system is taboo. It is simply impossible. This is because the American system is considered sacred, perfect. It is only particular individuals who have problems, only particular problems that cannot be handled well. The system itself has no problems. Therefore, all actions can only be carried out within the purview of what the system allows. The only path is by election—use a successful election to construct the starting point and foundations of societal change.

The American system is considered sacred, perfect. It is only particular individuals who have problems, only particular problems that cannot be handled well. The system itself has no problems.

Because of this, in the political rhetoric of Bernie Sanders, we see not a radical revolution or transformation, but a complete obedience to the American system. Due to the American people’s 100% approval and obedience to the system, any possibilities that people may have substantive critique or doubts vis-à-vis the system are cut off, and no action can be taken. The American system has completely limited their space for movement. Even “radicals” similarly can only raise high the banner of the American system, and can only work and influence society within designated limits: by pushing their own candidates in elections.

A few weeks ago, the police brutality case of George Floyd caused massive numbers of Americans to take to the streets and protest without ceasing.

Yet have we seen any protestor put out protest against the very structure of America’s political system, institutions, and government? Will there be any person who comes and burn the Constitution? Burn the American flag? Will there be any person who will put forth concrete plans of actions towards subversion?

There wasn’t any. The protestors could only protest a few “conditions.” Each path towards resolution is diverted back into elections.

The United States uses the separation of powers mechanism to spread the vast majority of social contradictions among the politicians of the various local jurisdictions. Through the possibility of election, in order to resolve these contradictions, the people complain while pointing at the politicians, not the institutions themselves. In the end, the people believe they hold the power and can influence politics through the vote, carrying on their lives under this sort of hope.

The most awe-inspiring politics indeed is this: one in which people believe they have the power and thus maintain steadfast hope in the future, while at the same time changing nothing about the current situation.

A few weeks ago, when riots erupted all around the United States, Secretary of State Pompeo could still proudly boast and simultaneously demean China: Wehave freedom of assembly, expression, and freedom to protest.

The American system has already developed to this point: simply give the people freedom of expression and freedom to protest so that they can feel themselves righteous and superior, after which they may do as they wish.

I have before written an essay “From ‘Moral Licensing’ and ‘black-clad warriors’ to the ‘Sick People of Hong Kong’” in which I explained the concept of moral licensing:

“People believe that if they had prior done something good, they can then possibly condone themselves (or even indulge themselves) when in the future they do something not as good (even actions that do not conform to one’s own or the public’s moral standards).”

The circumstances surrounding the system of the U.S. are such: if we allow people expression, allow them to freely scold the government, this grants the people “political and civil rights.” This itself grants the American system moral superiority; it is the ends not the means. Afterwards, the government need not do anything further: “half-heartedly listen yet decide to do nothing.” That there have been so many racial conflicts and riots in the past few decades demonstrates that this kind of “expression” does not bring any substantive political transformation. American society has not experienced any fundamental changes. The people who can bear it no more cannot help but take to the streets after many a hard years.

The U.S.’s electoral system is a systemic, national form of “moral licensing”:

First, it grants people the right to vote, grants people a few nominal political and civil rights, allowing the people to feel that they have power and agency and thereby perceive moral self-satisfaction.

Afterwards, the politicians and elites can recount the greatness and glory of the system, right and proper as it is. “We allow African Americans to go out on the streets! So our system is progressive.” “We had Obama as president, how can our society be discriminatory against African Americans?”

The first stage of American politics is taking “the right to express concerns” and equating it with “measures to resolve the problem.” I allowed you to express your opinion, so all is well.

The second stage of American politics is taking “the right to express concerns” and using it as legitimization for “tacit allowance of the bad.” I allowed you to express your opinion, and I even allowed a black president, so what are you babbling about?

As one can see, the separation of powers and electoral system in the United States has created a perfect “cognitive trap” — people believe that this system can endlessly empower individuals and provide limitless potential and possibilities, that it can change anything. This system is in fact like a black hole, taking all the potential and sucking it in and dispelling it — even if it means there will be no changes in reality.

This system is in fact like a black hole, taking all the potential and sucking it in and dispelling it — even if it means there will be no changes in reality.

I believe that there will not be an insurrection in the U.S. because there is no power in the U.S. that can overturn or transform the American system. The American system is too powerful, it can already change the meaning of words: turning “revolution” into reforms hemmed in by the limits of the electoral system. This is indeed an extraordinarily powerful system.

Only an enormous outside pressure can cause the United States to change.

China is just such a pressure currently placed on the United States. In the beginning, the pressure was indistinct, unclear, but now it grows more apparent as China continues its rise.

Why Can’t America Criticize Its Own System?

Apart from “empowering” people, giving them the fantastic illusion of grasping political power and being able to influence it, the American electoral system is also importantly related to the system’s construction of an American person’s identity.

As I have written two days prior in the essay “Why the United States Does Not Understand China — From the Original Intention of the Communist Party of China, to European Civilization, to American Politics”, the United States is an multi-national country, assimilating many people from different ethnicities, nationalities, cultures, and societies. To bind these people together, a country cannot rely on blood ties, shared ethnicity, or shared culture, but instead on shared political values—the approval of the Constitution of the United States, and the approval of the foundational political values of the United States.

Political values and the American system: these two formulate the “national identity” of the United States.

Disavowing the American system is tantamount to disavowing the American national identity, necessarily meaning being anti-American.

Every civilization must construct its own foundations for national identity.

The national identities of European countries lay upon race, blood, and land, and, after, language and culture. Denying one’s race, blood, land, and language is to go against one’s own national character, and is hardly acceptable.

China is also multi-national, its national identity based more on culture and language; one able to integrate into the Chinese nation is one who can be accepted. Land is secondary, and ethnicity and blood ties may also be factors. But in summary, the inclusiveness of the Chinese people is quite potent, with ethnicity, blood ties, and other such factors relatively weak considerations. From the point-of-view of Chinese people, disavowing Chinese culture, history, tradition, or the perception of China’s territory and borders, is what it takes to disavow or be disloyal to China.

From the standpoint of the United States, ethnicity, blood, land, language, culture, and history are not key factors; only political values are. To disavow the American system is to disavow the American “nation.”

From the standpoint of any nationality, for one to deny their own national character is very much unacceptable, no matter if it is Europe, China, or the United States. The distinction from Europe and China is that the American nationality is built on the foundation of a political system and values.

In what circumstances then does a society or a nationality go against and disavow their own nationality?

I am currently of the belief that it is only in a cross-ethnic or transnational international setting where one could find serious frustrations which could produce such a self-disavowal.

Only in facing an enormous failure can there possibly be a self-disavowal, even a “self-hatred”.

China’s concept of nationality is built on culture and civilization. In the past two hundred years or so, China has suffered foreign invasion and bullying, thoroughly fell behind and received thrashings, and as a result came to doubt much of its own system and culture. This type of self-doubt and self-disavowal has persisted onto the present day. Chinese people tend to search for their own “inherent weaknesses” among their traditional culture.

Once the Chinese economy grew, and subsequently once its global standing rose, people began to change, becoming self-confident, and more were able to see the good aspects of Chinese traditional culture and contemporary societal practices.

The U.S. is similar. The American concept of national character is its own system and political value. Nothing short of a severe frustration of the American system, perhaps by China comprehensively catching up to or surpassing the United States, perhaps even failing in a competition or struggle with China, would possibly wake up the Americans to their senses. The basis for the United States’ own “four self-confidences” is its absolute leading role in the world for the past close to a century. The U.S.’s strength made people believe that the American system must be superior, and based on this they came to believe that America’s national character must be superior. The U.S. vigilantly guards against and attacks any other country that could challenge its national might, because any challenge would undermine the supposed superiority of the U.S.’s national character.

The U.S. vigilantly guards against and attacks any other country that could challenge its national might, because any challenge would undermine the supposed superiority of the U.S.’s national character.

If China one day rises and is to enter conflict with the United States and comes to outdo the American system, then for certain it would deal a huge blow to the self-confidence of the American people.

Only in such a time may the American people perhaps engage in deeper introspections on their system and models, and thereby possibly search for and implement necessary reforms.

I believe that American politics and society have extraordinarily powerful inertia and cannot initiate any self-led, self-directed adjustments in the short-term, unless there is outside pressure.

China’s rise is by now inevitable and will come to pressure the U.S. more as time goes on. At a certain point, the U.S. will be forced to confront and rethink their own system, to seek more changes and reforms. This is precisely like the period at the end of the 70s and beginning of the 80s, in which the U.S. confronted the rise of Japan in industrial and commercial matters. Thus, the U.S. increasingly scrutinizing China is only a matter of time.

As China continues to grow stronger, its influence on international affairs will naturally grow larger as well. At the same time, the United States will experience a relative decline, its soft power and political influence around the world will face relative decline as well. China can indeed throw out or act as a challenge, check, or supplement (the terminology is not important) to the American model in the future, and proceed on a path distinct from that of the West.

The path China takes will also influence the course of human development in the future, and indeed may be a course we will get to see in our lifetimes.

Finally, if there is a lesson that China must draw from the U.S. concerning principles of political systems, it must be that we must constantly remember to remain humble. Under no circumstances can we allow ourselves to become complacent and lose our vigilance. We must constantly look at our shortcomings, search for reforms and improvements, and consistently upgrade ourselves. “Four self-confidences” of course is vitally important, but we must at the same time retain our characteristically Chinese low-key, pragmatic, cautious, modest, and moderate dispositions.

We must never emulate the Americans in their blindness, arrogance and self-importance, lack of introspection, or their coarse self-confidence.[MORE]

Translated by Sean Haoqin Kang. The original Wechat blogpost, “American ‘Revolution’: The ‘Systemic Trap’ and the Lessons China Must Draw” can be found here (link in Chinese).


Selections by Amarynth

The Empire takes a knee. Let it. But we don’t have to!

The Empire takes a knee.  Let it. But we don’t have to!

THE SAKER • JUNE 10, 2020

It is quite interesting to observe how many commentators are completely misreading the current race riots or compare them with previous race riots in the history of the US. I suppose that by telling themselves that these latest riots are “just like” or “not nearly as bad” as past US race riots they try to reassure themselves by maintaining the illusion that what is taking place now is of limited and/or temporary magnitude. It is not.

No, it is not “just like” the past

Oh sure, there is plenty of racial violence (by all sides) in US history, from the very inception of the US as a slave-owning society, to the immense number of lynchings (which took place in the North as much as in the South, those interested ought to read “At the Hands of Persons Unknown: The Lynching of Black America” by Philip Dray) to the murderous “Tulsa Massacre” which even saw Black neighborhoods bombed from the air! And while those who point out that there have been many race riots in the past are correct, they are fundamentally missing the key fact that the current “race riots” are not “just” race riots, but the result of many more complex and multi-layered phenomena. The best proof of this qualitatively new nature of the riots is that they have not only spread across the US like wildfire, but that they also spread to Europe and in Asia and Oceania (see here and here). Even some Japanese joined this decidedly gaijin phenomenon!

So what is going on here?

Unless we assume that Danes, Belgians or New Zealanders have been personally victimized by racist US cops, we have to admit that what triggered this worldwide rash of protests is not a first-hand personal trauma, but only second-hand exposure to a very specific narrative spread with quasi total uniformity by the legacy corporate ziomedia. I call this narrative “Black is Beautiful“.

The pernicious “Black if Beautiful” ideological dogma

Black is beautiful began in the US in the 1960 and it has since become an integral part of the western doxa, an ideological dogma which cannot be challenged without immediately resulting in an accusation of “racism”. Simultaneously, another ideological dogma was developed, the one which claims that “all races are equal”, but without ever really defining the terms “race” or the term “equal”. Interestingly, the notions that Black is beautiful or races are all equal are never demonstrated, only proclaimed, and any insistence that these notions be factually substantiated also results in an immediate accusation of “racism”.

It is not my purpose today to assess the merits (or lack thereof) of this narrative. But what I want to point out is this: any narrative which cannot be challenged or questioned without immediately being branded “racist” is an extremely intolerant one. It is also obviously a narrative which fears any scrutiny for empirical evidence. Yet, those who otherwise denounce the “lying media” or say things like “I don’t believe it unless the government denies it” or “how do you know when a politician is lying? when his lips are moving” seem to be more than willing to uncritically accept these ideological dogmas.

Furthermore, one key tenet of any honest quest for true moral values is that it be equally applied to all (if it ain’t – then it is, by definition, hypocrisy). Yet just try to mention something like “White is Beautiful” or, say, support the idea of a “National Association for the Advancement of White People” or wear a Tshirt with “White Lives Matter” on it and you will will be instantly branded a racist. Why? Because far from promoting real “equality” the modern liberal ideology really preaches Black superiority – a special status for Blacks which cannot be symmetrically granted to White (or any other) people. Furthermore, since most people agree “that beauty is in the eye of the beholder“, we can immediately conclude that the thesis “Black is Beautiful” is really an opinion, not an established fact. Presumably, it would imply the right to the opinion that “Black is not beautiful”, right? LOL, good luck with that! Again, this is a clear case of bias/hypocrisy and, most crucially, the categorical rejection of any dissenting opinion. Finally, what does the term “Black” even mean here? Does it only apply to US and Sub-Saharan Blacks (apparently so), or does it also include, say, Ethiopians, Somalis, Tamils or even Australian Aborigines? Does it also apply to dark skinned Greeks or Sicilians? Yet again, we see that the category “Black” is entirely meaningless (as it the category “White” or “Yellow” – by the way!).

Those who have read me in the past know that I don’t even accept the notion of “race” which, in my opinion, is wholly non-scientific. I also loathe the so-called “White nationalism” of the Alt-Rights & Co. which I consider as a rather primitive form of racism (which I defined under #4 here) and even a whitewashing of the Nazi ideology which is “pushed” by the deep-state (for details, please see my article here on this topic). Yet, following my previous article on this topic, I still had a few knuckleheads accusing me of, what else, “racism”. I think of these people as “pachinko brains”(“payazzo brains” would also work): they take each idea they come across as an “ideological ball” and they immediately assume that it absolutely *must* fall within one of a very limited set of categories. For them the simply fact of saying, for example, “the thesis about racial equality has never been properly defined, never mind proven” can only mean one thing: the person saying so is a racist. Period. No other options possible. What they obviously miss is that a person which does not even accept the notion of “race” cannot be a “racist”, but who cares about these logical niceties, right? Virtue-signaling is much, much more important than facts or logic, at least for pachinko-brains.

I strongly believe that the western media, especially the US media (Hollywood/Amazon/Neflix/etc) have literally brainwashed much of the poorly educated youth (and that is an understatement!) into a weird form of Black-anything worship, a cult-like certitude that everything Black deserves a grateful standing ovation. Hence the sudden appearance of Black cowboysBlack Celts and Vikings and even of the Black Knights of the Round Table who, apparently, were also Black. There is even a new term created for this kind of “creative re-writing of history”: color-blind casting. I am awaiting the first appearance of Black “Snow-Black” (as opposed to Snow-White) with impatience…

The Empire is universally hated, and not just for its (very real) racism

This would all be rather harmless and even comical if it weren’t for the “other side of the ideological coin”: the AngloZionist Empire has totally and comprehensively lost any kind of moral or political authority, both in the US and in the EU (as well as in the 5 Eyes nations and other US colonies like Germany or Japan). In the past, the AngloZionist Empire was just as evil as it is today, but at least it had the means to provide a high degree of material welfare to its citizens, but now that the Empire is falling apart and in a major economic crisis, more and more people are turning their rage against their own government or, maybe even more accurately, against the obscenely wealthy ruling classes which have a total control of the US and/or EU political scene.

Remember how George Orwell wrote in his masterpiece 1984 “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face – forever“? I believe that a lot of people, Black and White, felt something similar when they saw the appalling footage of the slow murder of George Floyd by a gang of clearly stupid White cops. Yes, the image itself did not show Orwell’s boot, but the way that cop was crushing his knee into the neck of Floyd sent the same message “resistance is futile, we will crush you“. And many alienated and disenfranchised people (Black and White) felt a profound sense of outrage and even rage, hence the explosion of riots worldwide.

So where do we go from here?

Simply put, things are not going to get better. Neither the US (as the host of the Empire) nor the Empire itself (which is a parasite living off the US) are in any condition to reform themselves. This train has left a very long time ago (and it appears that 80% of US Americans agree with that). As long as the Empire (thought of as “The West”) still had some credibility left, it could at least pretend to be willing to right many undeniable wrongs without subverting itself in the process. After all, the best way to control a potentially dangerous opposition is to infiltrate it and then redirect it in a safe direction (that is basically the main role given to the Left wing of the Democratic Party and its pretend-revolutionaries leaders like Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard: a glorified safety valve). Furthermore, the entire BLM movement – being both racist and violent – has exactly zero potential, even partially, to reform the Western society (abolishing police departments does not qualify). This does not mean, however, that it cannot greatly contribute to the final collapse of the Empire. After all, what we see today is that all the symbols of power of this society (politicians, cops, corporations, religious leaders, etc.) are “taking a knee” when faced with what any mentally sane society would immediately recognize as a textbook case of criminal rioting. And when one politician dares to appeal for a full restoration of law and order, he gets vilified along with the editor who dared to post it. In other words,

The Empire is taking a knee

This is not unlike what happened to the Soviet Union in the late 1980s when basically the entire ruling elite felt that it had lost any will to stand up against the opposition and when it became trendy to bash everything Soviet (much of which very much deserved such bashing, but not everything!). That state of affairs led to, first, the collapse of the soviet society Soviet Union in 1991 and, second, the collapse of the Russian society in 1993. The Soviet Union, just like the United States, was born from a bloodbath and for decades the Soviet leaders could use their police/security forces, and even the military, to crush any dissent, as in what happened in Novocherkassk massacre in 1962. Yet by 1991 and 1993 even the KGB special forces refused to take any action against the demonstrators. Why? Because by 1990 the Soviet Empire had also completely “taken a knee” before (a completely imagined and non-existing) the West just as the West today is “taking a knee” before (a completely imagined and non-existing Wakanda-like) Africa. Considering the evils which the West has wrought upon the African continent in general, and Sub-Saharan Africa especially, there is some karmic justice at work here, but this will be of very little consolation for all the people (irrespective of race) who are now suffering from the criminal mayhem of the BLM-inspired mobs (or from the violence of the police forces for that matter!).

So what can decent people do next?

Well, for one thing we don’t have to chose between White and Black racism. In fact, the only logical (and moral) stance today is to reject any and all forms of racism, very much including the Hollywood-promoted anti-White (and, I would add, anti-family, anti-male and anti-Christian) and pro-Black racism. And, crucially, we need to reject anti-White racism not because there is such a thing as a “White race” out there, but because the current anti-racist ideology is every bit as oppressive and intolerant as the racist anti-Black (and not only!) ideology of the heydays of the western Empire. The enemy of my enemy is NOT always my friend and between White-supremacists and Black-supremacists, the only morally correct choice is to categorically reject any and all forms of supremacism, even and especially the one which happens to be promoted by those who oppress us all: the (multi-ethnic) oppressive ruling classes of the Empire.

So let the Empire’s leaders take a knee if they want to: let them show their cowardice and hypocrisy.

We don’t have to. Yes, it takes much more courage to speak against the prevailing ideological dogmas than to meekly parrot the official narrative. That is the price to be paid for true, inner, freedom.

AMERICA FAILS PANDEMIC STRESS TEST

05.06.2020 

South Front

America Fails Pandemic Stress Test

Written by J.Hawk exclusively for SouthFront

It is well established in scholarly literature on international conflict that whenever a country behaves in an erratic, aggressive manner, it is nearly always a reflection of deep-seated internal social, political, and economic problems which the country’s leadership is unable or unwilling to address. United States is an example of what happens when that country is a superpower facing not only international decline, but also internal decay. Zbigniew Brzezinski infamously described the Soviet Union as “Upper Volta with rockets”. That was never a fair comparison, since USSR lacked the massive pockets of poverty, social exclusion, and downright police repression that the United States boasts. Likewise the Soviet health care system could have coped with a pandemic better than the US one or even the current Russian Federation one. Today’s America, however, is that country Brzezinski spoke about. Expanding its global influence through direct, proxy, and hybrid wars became the most attractive policy tool intended to restore the health of the US economy which, since the end of the Cold War, was kept alive mainly by extremely permissive monetary policies of the US Federal Reserve which in the end inflated several stock market bubbles. Even today the Federal Reserve’s main concern is keeping the Dow Jones rally going, because a collapse on the markets would permanently cripple the US economy.

This is Philly around 5:30 today. There is just no defense for this behavior. At all.


11.1K people are talking about this

However, at risk of mixing metaphors, an economy built on equity bubbles is a house of card that will collapse at the slightest shock. COVID-19 proved to be that shock, a “Black Swan” event that has been predicted for many years  that would precipitate a radical transformation of domestic political systems and of the balance of power in the international system. The pandemic became a test of not just public health systems, but of the strength of each country’s economy, the cohesion of its society, and the ability of its government to govern. Even though we are still in the early stages of the crisis, we can already see that some states are passing the test (so far) with flying colors, while others are being wracked by internal turmoil. To quote Warren Buffett, when the tide recedes you see who has been swimming naked. The United States has been revealed to be quite wardrobe-challenged in this instance.

America Fails Pandemic Stress Test

The callous slow-motion torture and murder of George Floyd in the Democratic Party stronghold of Minneapolis by four police officers with long histories of brutality against ethnic minorities was the spark that ignited the powder keg of US race relations. It certainly did not help that the United States created forty million new unemployed and failed to provide them with adequate financial support, due to the infamously miserly US social safety net. And just as COVID-19 is disproportionately lethal to US ethnic minorities who suffer from a higher level of underlying medical conditions due to poverty, malnutrition, and stress, so did the job losses disproportionately affect African Americans. The average black worker does not “work from home” on his laptop computer. Rather, the average black worker is employed in food service, hospitality, and retail, all of which have been crushed by the pandemic and, especially, the lockdown measures. It is no wonder that the conservatives wanted to “re-open” the economy as quickly as possible. Chasing millions of African Americans back to their menial jobs, even when it involved them facing greater risk of infection and death, would at least deprive them of the free time they have available to protest.


Just about an hour ago, police officers shove man in Niagara Square to the ground (WARNING: Graphic). Video from: @MikeDesmondWBFO


66.2K people are talking about this

The Fuel

The speed with which the protests spread across the country, affecting every state and most large cities, is a reflection of the universality of the problem that the events in Minneapolis revealed. In the face of slow-motion economic collapse and the destruction of the American middle class, the US political system at both state and federal levels has subtly but effectively sought to shift the economic pain to the minorities, in order to preserve the standard of living of the white middle class on whose support the legitimacy of the US political and economic system still rests. The armed white militias that protested at several state legislatures only a month earlier are an expression of that fear. The “don’t tread on me” Gadsden Flags quite clearly express who is to be tread upon, and who is not. They are a warning that should US elites attempt to economically marginalize the white middle class, they may expect a forceful response. The weak police response to law-breaking perpetrated by armed white militias was not lost on most commentators, either. But these politics of “economic triage” where the pain is shifted to the communities of color also implies the need for heavy-handed police repression which US police forces are all too happy to deliver. US law enforcement should not be seen as a collection of politically-neutral guardians of law and order. Rather, it skews heavily toward the right, even the far-right, and it is no surprise that Donald Trump enjoys the overwhelming support of American police unions and organizations. While these trends were evident for the last decade at least, since the 2008 crisis to which the US government never found an adequate response, the pandemic accelerated it to the point of the tensions and grievances finally boiling over.

The Firehose

Whenever a fire breaks out, it is ultimately either put out or burns itself out due to lack of fuel. It is doubtful this is going to burn itself out on its own, given that the US law enforcement is now providing more provocation with its heavy-handed tactics on daily basis, and moreover neither the pandemic nor the economic crisis are going anywhere any time soon. Since the United States is now in the throes of domestic unrest not seen since the days of Vietnam War, it raises the question of what is to be done about it? Which leaders, which policies, might definitively address the grievances of the masses?

We can safely say Donald Trump will not be the one, because to the extent he is wielding a fire hose, it seems to be mostly spraying gasoline on the fire. Literally every action, every statement, every tweet, has served to polarize and exacerbate the problems. It may be Trump is doing this deliberately, hoping to replicate Richard Nixon’s “silent majority” strategy, an idea that is supported by Trump himself tweeting these words. Yes, the riots polarize, but the hope is that, when the smoke clears, Trump’s half is the bigger of the two and, like Nixon, he secures his re-election. Richard Nixon won his re-election by a landslide, even though after the fact almost nobody admitted ever voting for him. However, few things motivate voting for conservatives in the US more than the sight of black rioters and looters.

Of course, the problem Trump faces here is that Joe Biden has impeccable “law and order” credentials, complete with the ability to “dog whistle” to white conservatives. Biden, after all, is the politician who said in the 1970s he did not want his children to “grow up in a racial jungle”, and his support of anti-crime legislation which led to the mass incarceration of African-Americans in the last few decades suggests he is willing to put his money where his mouth is. Thanks to his role as Obama’s vice president, he also has certain sway among the African American community that has served him well in the primaries and obscured his previous racist record. But in the end Biden is no Obama, whose combination of personality and politics was just enough to keep America from blowing up. Biden does not have the same combination, and moreover he is presiding over an economic catastrophe that will not be as easy to rectify by throwing money at banks the way the 2008 crisis was.

The one politician who correctly identifies both problems and solutions and who also commands considerable popular support, Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, has been effectively sidelined by the Democratic Party which is utterly uninterested in adopting policies of economic and social justice. It means that, in the longer term, America will move toward greater police repression which will be far more easily accepted by the white public when it is done during a Biden presidency. Given that neither Biden’s nor Obama’s public appearances were effective at demobilizing the protests, it means the United States is facing the prospect of its own Yellow Vest-style uprising, namely a continuous low-level anti-government uprising that will ebb and flow but never entirely disappear.

MORE ON THE TOPIC:

ماذا تقول الأحداث الأميركيّة؟ وماذا عن المقارنات اللبنانيّة؟

ناصر قنديل

تدخل الأحداث التي تتفجّر عنفاً في الشوارع الأميركيّة وتشمل عدداً كبيراً من المدن والولايات طريق التعاظم، لأسبوع إضافي، وبمعزل عن حماسة الترحيب بهذه الأحداث أو الدعوات لعدم الاحتفال بها، فهي لا تبدو مجرد احتجاج عابر على مقتل الرجل الأسود على أيدي رجال الشرطة، بمقدار ما شكل الحادث الصادم بطريقته وظروفه، عنصر التفجير لمخزون غضب كان ينتظر فرصة التحوّل إلى شريك في المشهد الأميركي. ومخزون الغضب يتجمّع مع الخطاب العنصريّ للرئيس دونالد ترامب، وزادته تعاظماً بأضعاف مضاعفة الأزمات الاجتماعية الناجمة عن تداعيات وباء كورونا، وتشرد ملايين العاطلين عن العمل من وظائفهم، وانضمامهم إلى طالبي الإعانات، في ظل تراكم مجموعة أحداث سياسية دولية أصابت الهيبة الأميركية، خصوصاً في الجوار المباشر، الذي تمثله فنزويلا، بعدما قدّمها ترامب كثمرة ناضجة للقطاف العنصري لنظامه، وتحوّلت بعد وصول ناقلات النفط الإيرانيّة، إلى عنوان الفشل الأميركي، فيما لا تبدو الانتخابات الفرصة التي كان ينتظرها الشارع الغاضب على ترامب وإدارته لتغيير ديمقراطي، في ظل الصورة الباهتة التي يقدّمها الحزب الديمقراطي، والمشاكل التي تحيط بأهليّة مرشحه جو بايدن لمواصلة السابق الانتخابي، مع ظهور بوادر للتلاعب بالعملية الانتخابية برمّتها، وصولاً لفرضيات التأجيل حتى إشعار آخر.

الغضب وانعدام الأمل هما طريق النزول إلى الشارع، وهما عنصران متوافران بقوة في شارع أميركي ليس محصوراً بأصحاب البشرة السوداء. فضحايا العنصرية التي يضخها خطاب ترامب تتخطاهم لتطال ذوي الأصول اللاتينيّة، والمسلمين، والنساء، والأزمة الاقتصادية الاجتماعيّة تمسّ شرائح كانت تحسب حتى الأمس على الطبقة الوسطى من البيض المتنورين، وتحرك مجموعات الوسط الليبرالي واليساري الذين أظهرت حملة المرشح بيرني ساندرز أنهم شريحة وازنة في معظم الولايات الأميركية، وهذا الشارع المتنوع يبدو أنه ينضم تدريجاً للحركة الاحتجاجية التي تتسع بصورة لافتة على مستوى تنوّع مكوّناتها، وتعدد ولاياتها، لتصير أقرب نحو تشكيل شارع وطني أميركي يواجه سلطة حكم، متوحشة، اقتصادياً واجتماعياً وسياسياً وإعلامياً، يقودها وحش مالي عنصري هو دونالد ترامب، من دون وجود أفق راهن لتسوية في منتصف الطريق، في ظل أزمة اقتصادية مرشحة للمزيد من التفاقم، وشح متزايد في الموارد، مع تراجع عام تعانيه الشخصية الأميركية في العالم، في ظل فقدان السيطرة على الملفات السياسية الخارجية كحاكم منفرد للعالم، من جهة، وتراجع كبير في الصورة العلمية والأخلاقية التي حرص الأميركيون دائماً على إظهار تفوّق نموذجهم في تمثيلها. وكان ما شهدته الولايات الأميركية وخصوصاً نيويورك، في مواجهة وباء كورونا، التعبير الأقوى عن هذا السقوط العلمي والأخلاقي.

المخاض الأميركي يبدو مفتوحاً، بلا أفق واضح لخاتمة قريبة، والحديث هنا ليس عن ثورة ولا عن تغيير نظام بالتأكيد، هو الغضب الشعبي اليائس من قدرة النظام على احتواء الأزمات ضمن مؤسسات الديمقراطية. وهذا يجب أن يدركه الذين يرغبون بإجراء المقارنات مع ما شهده لبنان، ويحبّون بتسميته ثورة، فما يجري في أميركا يشبه ما جرى في لبنان، وليس تغيير النظام في كليهما أفقاً ممكناً، ولا صفة الثورة تصحّ فيه، لأنها بالضبط بلا قيادة وبلا برنامج، وما يجري في أميركا يقول للبنانيين الذين يتساءلون عن معنى احتفال الخصوم السياسيين للإدارة الأميركية بما يجري، بينما لم يفعلوا ذلك تجاه ما جرى في لبنان، الجواب بسيط، هو أنهم لا يرغبون لبلدهم ما يرغبونه لعدوهم، من فوضى ومخاطر أمنية، وضياع للأفق السياسي؛ أما الذين يقولون لماذا لا يطعن أحد بأهلية ما يجري في أميركا من الذين طعنوا بأهلية ما جرى في لبنان؟ فالجواب ببساطة هو أن “لا وجود لسفارة أميركية في أميركا”.

فيديوات متعلقة

مقالات متعلقة

How Biden Continues to Protect His Billionaire Donors

How Biden Continues to Protect His Billionaire Donors

May 19, 2020

by Eric Zuesse  for The Saker Blog

On 2 March 2020, Forbes headlined “BILLIONAIRE BACKERS” and listed the number of them who had financed each of the Democratic Presidential campaigns:

  • Biden 66
  • Buttigieg 61
  • Klobucar 33
  • Steyer 13
  • Warren 6
  • Gabbard 3
  • Bloomberg 1
  • Sanders 0

Joe Biden’s entire career in public life has been devoted to his top donors. He once even justified it by saying, “You go out and bundle $250,000 for me, all legal, and then you call me after I am elected, and say ‘I would like to come and talk about something.’ You didn’t buy me, but it’s human nature, you helped me. I’m going to say, ‘Sure, come on in’,” which means that if you have “helped” him, then he represents you in a way that he doesn’t represent the voters who merely voted for him on the basis of the ads for him that those billionaires had financed. (And if you had voted against him, then would such a person represent you at all?) As a major donor, you can visit with him in private, whenever you want, instead of never be able to visit with him, at all. This is what’s called “crony capitalism,” and he built his career on it, and he thinks that this is okay.

On May 3rd, the Miami Herald bannered “Biden, Warren: There’s no oversight of coronavirus relief — because that’s what Trump wants”, and Biden signed onto an Elizabeth Warren Op-Ed there that evaded the chief corruption in the bailout legislation which was unanimously passed in Congress and was signed by Trump. Almost all of the corruption in that enormously lobbied bill is in the bailouts for corporations; virtually none of it is in the bailouts for workers or for state and local governments; and, yet, neither Biden nor Warren were presenting, in this Op-Ed, the case against bailing out ANY corporations. And the reason is obvious: Joe Biden had needed to cheat in order to win the Democratic nomination, and he couldn’t have succeeded to get the money from 66 billionaires and to win the nomination if he hadn’t done this — he needed that money, in order to be able to pull it off and fool enough voters. And, those billionaires’ wealth is mainly in investments, corporate stocks and bonds, which are receiving the biggest portion of those bailouts. In other words: most of the leveraged-up $6 trillion total that’s in just the first piece of legislation comes from the “$454 Billion Slush Fund for Wall Street Bailouts”. That’s actually the biggest portion of the bailouts for billionaires.

What Biden and Warren are proposing, instead, is that there should have been better monitoring of how that money will be spent or ‘invested’. The actual issue is that all bailouts that go to investors instead of to the public — workers and consumers — are wrong: a top-down, trickle-down, give-away to the richest, so as to guarantee their wealth until the crisis has passed. Workers and consumers will absorb almost all of the losses. Whereas 70% of the wealth of the richest 0.1% is investments, and 55% of the top 1% also is, only around 7% of the bottom 99% is. The wealth of the bottom 99% is overwhelmingly labor-based — and labor gets punished by the controlling investors. And, so, whereas the wealth of the richest 1% is receiving significant protection by this Government in that bailout, the wealth of the rest of the population isn’t. Workers and consumers are largely on their own. The risks are transferred away from the super-rich, onto the public. The super-rich had hired enormous armies of lobbyists in order, basically, to write this legislation.

Biden isn’t necessarily worse than Trump, but the deception of the public is massive by both of the political Parties.

Until the South Carolina primary, on February 29th, in which the vast majority of the voters were Blacks, Bernie Sanders was believed (on the basis of the prior primaries and the national polls) to be the almost inevitable nominee of the Party, but on 16 April 2019, the New York Times bannered “‘Stop Sanders’ Democrats Are Agonizing Over His Momentum” and reported that the Party’s billionaires were terrified by the possibility that Sanders might actually win the nomination; and on February 23rd, Politico’s headline right after the Nevada primary was “Sanders sends Democratic establishment into panic mode”. Sanders didn’t need the billionaires, but Biden certainly did, just as he always has. And they own him, just as they always have. The Democratic Party is controlled by and for its billionaires, just as much as the Republican Party is.

If the leadership give you two cups of poison and say that in order to participate in politics as a voter, you must drink one of them, and that this drinking by you constitutes “democracy,” then which cup will you take, and what will you do with it? What will you do with that poisoned chalice? What will you do with it?

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

The Financial Hysteria of America and the Bankruptcy of Western Liberalism

The Financial Hysteria of America and the Bankruptcy of Western ...

Martin Sieff May 13, 2020

Western Liberalism is not only bankrupt: It bankrupts. Nowhere is this clearer than in the hysterical panic with which Republicans and Democrats alike in the United States are printing limitless sums of theoretical money to pump demand into a structurally wildly distorted and dying economic system in utterly futile efforts to fend off a looming super-Depression and world economic crisis.

Yet as becomes more clear every day, far from maintaining the current global structure, created by U.S. bankers and diplomats and dictated to the rest of the world back in 1944, all these efforts are just accelerating the disintegration of the Old Order.

There is a supreme irony to this, for the most important creator of the Old World Economic and Financial Order – the one that is now disintegrating as we watch – was none other than the patron saint of liberalism – a man who has become a non-person in the United States in the past 40 year “Age of Reagan” (as I explain in my 2015 book “Cycles of Change“) – legendary 32nd President of the United States President Franklin Roosevelt.

It is fascinating to watch Democratic Party leaders today as they desperately try to conjure up the great appeal and success of the only man ever to win four U.S. presidential held up Roosevelt’s leadership through World War II as a model of leadership for today.

That should be entirely true, But neither current (and sinking fast) putative party nominee Joe Biden nor his always-collapses-at-the-crucial-moment Senator Bernie Sanders haven’t a clue what they are talking about.

Two factors were central to Franklin Roosevelt’s extraordinary success as a war leader – and Sanders and Biden are both pathetically blind to both of them:

The first was Roosevelt’s unhesitating and consistent support for his allies, especially the unprecedented flow of Lend Lease aid in food, trucks and other equipment to the Soviet Union which was carrying the main burden of the combat war against Nazi Germany almost single-handedly.

The second was the remarkable fiscal prudence and caution Roosevelt showed throughout his presidency, especially in his creation of the landmark Social Security program.

Roosevelt was vastly more cautious and even cynical in developing this program to give financial support for the first time in history to aging Americans.

Although the landmark congressional legislation was passed in 1935 and became law on August 14 of that year as part of the so-called “Second New Deal,” financial contributions out of the pay checks of all legally working Americans only started to be withdrawn in 1937. Even then, it was still another three years before the first U.S. citizen ever to receive a check from Social Security picked it up: That was 76-year-old Ida Fuller of Vermont on January 17, 1940. Her first check came to the generous sum of $41.30.

From 1935, when the legislation was passed to vast popular acclaim, it was another six years at the height of the Great Depression, when more Americans were starving and dying of poverty and related hardships than ever before or since in the nation’s history before a single individual actually got any benefit from it.

The actuarial calculations on which Roosevelt designed Social Security were even more cynical and ruthless.

Social Security was to be paid to retirees after the age of 65. But at the time, the median age of Americans was 61. Only a tiny privileged minority survived to the age of 65 or beyond.

Roosevelt practiced exceptional caution to keep the U.S. economy and currency stable during the New Deal and the Great Depression. Contrary to popular (Republican) myth, he was adamantly opposed to bankrupting the country either in his own time or in that of his grandchildren. “It is almost dishonest to build up an accumulated deficit for the Congress of the United States to meet in 1980,” he famously said. “We can’t do that. We can’t sell the United States short in 1980 any more than in 1935.”

Roosevelt’s exceptional caution contrasts with the wild spending both Republicans and Democrats from Bernie Sanders to Donald Trump have been practicing, driving their country into final bankruptcy during the current coronavirus crisis.

Comments financial analyst and former London merchant banker Martin Hutchinson in his May 4 “Bear’s Lair” column, “the CBO (Congressional Budget Office)’s estimate of budget deficits of 18% of GDP in 2020 and 10% of GDP in 2021 are truly frightening. …they bring the likely bankruptcy of the U.S. government much closer than seemed likely previously, probably to around 2030.”

Indeed, given the terrifying vulnerability of the U.S. financial system to the collapse of the $2 trillion junk bond market used to financial the collapsing fracking energy sector, projecting a meltdown U.S. financial crisis a balmy ten years ahead seems wildly optimistic.

In fact, the road from Franklin Roosevelt’s cautious callousness in designing Social Security so that it would not pay a penny to those who needed it for another five years (until, indeed, the Great Depression was already over!) to the “spend endlessly, spend now” crazed panic of both Republicans and Democrats is a very clear one:

It is the road of palliative Western liberalism, open borders and global Free Trade: It is a road that inevitably leads to ever huger debt burdens, ever-declining standards of living and inevitable ruin.

By contrast, the extremely fiscally cautious, highly conservative financial policies that Russian President Vladimir Putin continues to follow get no respect from the spendthrift, zero interest rate maniacs on Wall Street. Yet it is Russia that is currently in a far stronger position to ride out the global financial as well as pandemic crises than the United States.

In statecraft and economics as in architecture, the most important issue is not how high you build but how well you build and how deep you build – How good your foundations are.

The storm of pandemic is already heralding the storm of financial crisis. That crisis can indeed be solved, but only by abandoning the old shibboleths, the old false gods that, as Dostoyevsky predicted at the very beginning of our modern industrialized, interconnected Age, would inevitably bring us to our ruin, unless reined in and reversed in time.

مفتاح البيت الأبيض بيد كورونا

زهر يوسف

من المبكر الحديث عن الرئيس السادس والأربعين للولايات المتحدة الأميركية، ومَن سيكون، أجمهورياً أم ديمقراطياً، دونالد ترامب أم جو بايدن؟ غير أنّ جملة معطيات حدثت وما زالت في أميركا ومنها فيروس كورونا، جعلت ترامب في وضع غير مرتاح، عكس منافسه الديمقراطي بايدن المبتسِم حتى اللحظة.

خرج السيناتور المستقلّ بيرني ساندرز من السباق الرئاسيّ الأميركي، وسلّم الراية لبايدن نائب الرئيس الأميركي السابق، انسحاب حدا بالبعض إلى القول إن مفاتيح البيت الأبيض باقية في قبضة ترامب “ملك التسويق” لولاية جديدة من أربع سنوات، إلا أن مؤشرات عديدة وقعت بدّدت ما ذهب إليه ذلك البعض، فيروس كوفيد – 19 “كورونا” يتصدّر قائمة التحديات المستجدة في الولايات المتحدة الأميركية. فآلية التعاطي الترامبي ومعه إدارته في ملف كورونا تحديداً وما يتفرّع عنه من قضايا وإشكاليات تعصف بالمجتمع الأميركي.

كلها أمور وضعت ترامب في مكان لا يرغب به بتاتاً، لا سيما بالنظر إلى استطلاعات الرأي التي أجريت حتى تاريخه وتكشف عن تقدّم لافت لمنافسه الديمقراطي جو بايدن.

وسائل الإعلام الأميركية التي وصفها ترامب بـ”المزيفة” في أكثر من محفل، تراقب عن كثب ماراتون السباق إلى البيت الأبيض، فمثلا صحيفة نيويورك تايمز – من دون أن تتبنى – استعانت بمصادر قالت إن استمزاج رأي داخل حملة ترامب يقّر أن الأخير خسر التأييد الذي كسبه في وقت مبكر من أزمة كورونا، هذا الاعتراف من داخل البيت الترامبي تزامن مع استطلاعات رأي أجريت في أكثر من ولاية أميركية، موالية كانت لمجلس الشيوخ “الجمهوري” أم مناصرة لمجلس النواب “الديمقراطي” وكشفت بوضوح تفوق بايدن على ترامب، المُطَالَب من قبل مشرّعين جمهوريين أولاً.. للحدّ من ظهوره الإعلامي وتصريحاته المشبعة بالأخطاء حيث يبدو ترامب كـ”مهرج سيرك” مبتدئ ينشد النجومية، ما يفقده أصوات ناخبين قد يجدون في بايدن طوق نجاة؛ وثانياً التحرك بقوة وحزم لمواجهة حالة الركود الاقتصادي التي بدأت في الظهور. الأرق الاقتصادي الذي ينتاب ترامب هذه الأيام ربما هو ما يجعل ترامب لا ينظر أبعد من ذلك، وإلا كيف يمكن تفسير دعوته الأخيرة لسكان الولايات الخمسين إلى “تحرير” الولايات في إشارة واضحة لكسر حالة الطوارئ المعلنة!! بخاصة أن المتابع لتصريحات ترامب منذ ظهور فيروس كورونا بالأمس القريب واللامبالاة التي قابله بها حتى اليوم، حيث تتصدّر أميركا دول العالم في أعداد المصابين والوفيات، المتابع يدرك جيداً أن ترامب ما انبرى يسأل عن فائدة إغلاق البلاد وما خلّفه ذلك من ارتفاع معدلات البطالة. وهذا يكشف أهمية الاقتصاد لترامب، وهو ما دفعه لاستئناف القطاعات الاقتصادية نشاطها، الأمر الذي أثار مخاوف كبيرة وهواجس مقلقة داخل أوساط القطاع الطبي الأميركي إذ في عهد ترامب صاحب شعار “إعادة أميركا عظيمة مجدداً” يتهاوى الأميركيون موتى بأعداد مرعبة كل يوم، كمدينة نيويورك مثلاً التي تدفن ضحايا كورونا في مقابر جماعية.

لذا السؤال كيف نبني موقفاً حاسماً لجهة مَن سيربح الانتخابات الرئاسية الأميركية، الإجابة ستكون أعقد من مسألة أن نصدر توقعات في هذا السياق، بايدن تحدّى ترامب وتوعده بإلحاق أقسى هزيمة، فهل يفعلها بايدن؟ خاصة أن مؤشرات تقول: قد ينجح ترامب!! أم أن كورونا قد يضع الجميع أمام واقع إرجاء الانتخابات من أساسها والمقررة في نوفمبر تشرين الثاني المقبل.

من يحي يرَ

*صحافية سورية

Joe Biden Is the 2020 Candidate of Fear

Joe Biden Is the 2020 Candidate of Fear - Russia News Now

Source

April 21, 2020

At a time when change is most needed, he’s asking voters to turn back, give up, and accept our country’s senility.

Daniel MCCARTHY

The Democratic Party is decadent, its future stillborn as its past seizes ownership of its backward-looking present. In 2020, the party is set to nominate for president a man who wasn’t good enough for the nomination in 1988 or 2008. Has he acquired a new vision or new vigor? No, but his party has run out of options.

Joe Biden is the candidate of old age and fear. Nostalgia for the Obama administration has been his prime selling point in the Democratic primaries, and it certainly helped him to win the support of African-American voters. But Biden is Barack Obama’s antithesis. In 2008 Obama truly was the candidate of “hope and change,” in the sense that he did represent a new page in American politics—he was a one-term senator, not mired in the ways of Washington like his rivals Hillary Clinton and John McCain (or Joe Biden, for that matter, who also ran for president that year); he was to be the first African-American president, providing hope that racial division could be overcome and inspiring young people of color to the highest aspirations; and his policy agenda seemed to be a break with the low expectations of what could be achieved at home and the excessively high expectations of what force could achieve abroad. However poorly the hopes panned out, and what little change succeeded, there was no doubting what Obama symbolized when he was first elected.

And Joe Biden? He’s a symbol that people as old as the Baby Boomers—or, in fact, a few years older—can still dominate national politics, especially in the Democratic Party. Though the 77-year-old Biden is a year younger than Bernie Sanders, he was the old man of the Democratic race in two senses that count for more than his birthday. First, Biden, not Sanders, was the candidate of experience, the one who made his pitch based most of all on his biography, not his plans and policy dreams; Sanders was the candidate of the dream, despite his own decades-long tenure in public life. Second, Sanders was the candidate that young voters preferred; Biden needed not only African-Americans but older Americans in order to become the party’s presumptive nominee. The problem for Democrats here is not necessarily what happens in November 2020, but rather how cohesive the party will be even if Biden can win. Does a Democratic Party led by a 78-year-old President Biden and an 80-year-old Speaker Pelosi have any future in a post-Boomer America?

Democrats have long taken for granted the advantage they expect to gain from America’s generational ethnic transformation: as whites become a smaller majority, and in more and more places are reduced to an electoral plurality, the minority voting blocs that have proved loyal to the Democrats should provide them with permanent power. Yet this is no longer a safe bet if the Democratic Party splinters ideologically, and the ability of leaders like Biden and Pelosi to appeal to the young leftists of all races who supported Bernie Sanders is very much open to doubt. To win elections with one set of voters, while a completely different set of voters holds the future of your party, is apt to be a Pyrrhic, and most temporary, victory.

The dead hand of the past lies heavy on the whole country, not just the Democratic Party. Since 1992, Americans have consistently elected Washington outsiders to the White House. Bill Clinton had no national experience when he won that year. George W. Bush had none when he was elected in 2000. Barack Obama had been in the Senate only four years when he won in 2008. And Donald Trump had no prior experience of holding office of any kind when he became president. Although considerable continuities emerged throughout the administrations of George H.W. Bush (a true Washington insider), Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama—all supported the project of a “liberal world order,” in which the United States was embroiled in foreign conflicts, while globalization was their imperative in economics—voters at each election demanded something new and different from the previous status quo. Clinton was certainly not elected because voters wanted more of what Bush I gave them; Bush II was not elected over Clinton’s vice president, Al Gore, because voters wanted to extend the Clinton era; and Obama was elected in explicit repudiation of Bush II. Donald Trump, of course, was the leader the country turned to in order to repudiate all of the above: Trump was as bold in his criticism of George W. Bush for the Iraq war, and of earlier Republicans for NAFTA, as he was in his attacks on Barack Obama’s record.

* * *

None of the other successful presidential contenders of the last 30 years has presented himself as a champion of an earlier status quo or a force for restoring Washington to its old ways. Even George W. Bush campaigned on a newfangled “compassionate conservatism,” not a return to Reaganism (or to the 1994 spirit of Newt Gingrich). While it’s possible that in 2020 Americans really will want to reverse the tides of time—after the misery of the COVID-19 experience and in reaction against the changes in government that Trump has instituted—the Obama legacy was not so potent in 2016 as to elect Hillary Clinton, and in four years under Joe Biden it is not going to get any fresher. Whatever opportunities this may present to Republicans and Sanders-style Democrats after 2020, for the country it will mean being stuck with an agenda and governing vision that had proved its limitations by 2016. The same conditions that led to the rise of Donald Trump’s populism and Bernie Sanders’s socialist movement that year will be established again under Biden, and after Biden those forces might take on much stronger forms than they did after Obama.

The Trump and Sanders phenomena have happened for a reason, after all. They happened because “hope and change” failed to deliver on its promises, and with Hillary Clinton there was no hope of anything other than stagnation. Trump and Sanders, in very different ways, represented new hopes and a defiance of stagnation. Biden, by contrast, offers no future at all. That includes a future in which he’s re-elected, age 81, in 2024. Who can imagine such a thing?

The near certainty that Joe Biden could only serve a single term if elected as president makes his choice of vice president a fateful one. That person will be the presumptive frontrunner for the 2024 Democratic nomination, and voters will take that into account when they cast their ballots this November. Should Biden win, he will be a lame duck from Day 1. Quite apart from whatever drawbacks his running mate will have in her own right (if Biden follows through on his pledge to pick a woman), the idea of electing a placeholder president for four years is not likely to sit very well with the American people. It would be an extraordinary abdication of leadership. And it’s not as if anyone would look to leadership in Congress to fill the gap. Nor, given the limitations of the office, would a vice president looking ahead to 2024 have the power to supply needed leadership before then. Quite the contrary: the vice president would be a target for everyone’s criticisms, Republicans and rival Democrats alike.

This is hardly a scenario for a return to stability and “competence” in government, as Donald Trump’s critics say they want. It’s equivalent instead to not having a president at all for four years—which may sound like a libertarian’s fantasy, except that the administrative state would continue to pursue an aggressively progressive agenda during the interim. That too can only contribute to populist resurgence.

For all the debilities that come with being the candidate of old age, there are advantages, too. Biden is not running as the paladin of the emerging Democratic Party, a party whose socialism and identity politics have been consistent losers at the ballot box—including, for the most part, in the 2018 midterms, and including in the Democratic presidential race this year. Biden is a survivor from an older, more broadly popular Democratic Party, one that still had powerful support in white working-class communities, such as those in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin that will be as decisive in 2020 as they were in 2016. For many voters of the Baby Boom generation, Biden is the third coming of the president they grew up idolizing, John F. Kennedy. JFK was the president they wished they could be, a glamorous symbol of America before Vietnam and Watergate. (Never mind that JFK actually deepend the country’s involvement in Vietnam.) Bill Clinton, who like JFK claimed an Irish ancestry—though one which in Bill’s case has never been proved—was the first Boomer elected president, and at 43 was just a year older than JFK had been when he was elected. Like JFK, Clinton had celebrity charm; and if he was a womanizer, too, that just went with the type.

Now Biden represents the same Boomer vision in maturity, even if he’s a few years too old to be a Boomer himself. Like Clinton, he also makes an unverifiable claim to Irish ancestry. Like Kennedy, he identifies as Roman Catholic. (And yes, like Kennedy and Clinton, he has been accused of mistreating women, and worse.) Biden is a callback to the Boomer memory of America—the look and feel of the country in the late 20th century, when white ethnics (Irish, Italians, Poles, and others) who had been at the margins earlier in the century now helped to define the mainstream, even occupying the highest office in the land. To elect Biden at 77 is, perhaps to some of these voters, a way of showing that they still matter in a country whose future will look very different. Much is made by Trump’s critics of the racial dimension to his support; but ethnic and generational identification with Biden should not be overlooked. Indeed, as a candidate who hopes to unite white ethnics and blacks, Biden is a throwback to the Democratic Party of an earlier age, too.

As the candidate of fear, Biden aims at a quite different segment of the electorate. Fear is what motivates upper middle class, highly educated voters. This professional class, filling as it does the ranks of journalism and the academy, presents itself as anything but fearful—according to its propaganda, fear is really hate, and hate is something that only deplorables experience, at least as a political emotion. Liberals will admit to being personally afraid, or worried for their communities, as a result of the horrors they believe Donald Trump has unleashed on the land. But only a populist demagogue, or maybe sometimes a socialist one, tries to capitalize on fear. Good liberal politicians are always about hope and change. Obama only made the slogan explicit. (In fact, “hope” was a byword of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign as well, which drew attention to the name his birthplace: Hope, Arkansas.)

Yet liberalism is the politics of fear in the most profound sense: it is an ideology that attempts to neutralize fear through the all-provident power of the state, guided by enlightened leadership. The fear that men and women traditionally feel on account of religion—fear of God’s wrath or fear of a universe without any order—is allayed by liberalism’s programmatic commitment to science and to rationalism more generally. Everything will have a rational explanation, yet that rational explanation will somehow be moral, too. What is important is that fear can be forgotten, without the need for any unearthly power to supply salvation. Instead, a supreme earthly power will remove all earthly worries: fear of want, fear of violent death, even fear of disease. The state is not the only institution that will meet these needs: for many liberals, the free market or science outside of government plays the greater role in provision. But the state at a minimum supplies the rules that make possible the efficient operation of the rest of liberal society.

And the state rests on a psychological foundation best explained by Thomas Hobbes. No doubt Joe Biden has given little thought to the 17th-century philosopher from Malmesbury, England. Most liberals do not think of themselves as Hobbesians, and a great many denounce Hobbes as an authoritarian or worse. But he understood that a politics suitable for a modern society has to prioritize fear, and its negation, over other emotions and their gratification. Other passions disturb the peace; but fear, particularly the fear of a violent death, can compel men to be reasonable. Fear of this kind is nigh universally felt, and its effects are quite predictable: people will support a power—an institution—that can protect them from violence.

By itself, that’s not a formula for liberalism. And what liberal society does with Hobbes’s political psychology is different from what he himself advised should be done in works like Leviathan. Liberals accept a great deal of competition and pluralism of many kinds, but what makes the competition and diversity possible is its harmlessness. The passions are allowed free rein, but only as long as they are weaker than the fear of violent death that holds society together.

* * *

To say that populism has a passion that is stronger than the fear of violent death would be going too far. But populism does involve a very strong passion for dignity, a desire for greater recognition of one’s status or plight—one’s humanity, in a felt and not just formally acknowledged sense. This passion is what most deeply offends the upper-middle-class opponents of populism in general and Trump in particular. They sense that this passion is the beginning of a different kind of politics, and has the potential to supplant the foundations of the old liberal system if it’s not checked. Populism has an understanding of human psychology and human nature different from those of liberalism, and such different foundations lead to different forms of politics and theories of the state.

Joe Biden’s voters have passions of their own, and they are no doubt usually sincere in saying that they are moved by a desire for justice or decency or fairness or any number of other objects of feeling. But all of those passions have been trimmed to fit the context of fear—the context of a political system in which fear has been negated but remains central, for should some other emotion displace it at the center of political psychology, the logic of the rest of the system would fail. The logic of competition for status or dignity looks very different from the logic of escaping from fear. The Trump phenomenon and populism threaten to upset this balance. This is why revolutionary or fascistic implications are attached to Trump’s politics by his detractors. Trump and his supporters are very far from being fascists, but their opponents believe that their emotional core, and their scale of passions, is inevitably incipiently fascistic.

Biden is the candidate for an America less concerned with dignity and more prepared to enjoy the fruits of a political psychology based on neutralizing fear. Under President Biden, the welfare state, science, and even the free market will continue to keep the fear of death at bay, and that will make room for mild pleasures: pornography and video games and varied cuisine and recreational activities of all sorts. Joe Biden’s louche son Hunter—known for his hearty indulgence in drugs and his sexual adventures with strippers—is a perfect specimen of humanity under this system. If he gets more stimulation than others, everyone else should get enough. And if they don’t, they mustn’t complain, they should ask for a program.

For all that liberals complain about Donald Trump’s affairs, or his great wealth, what exercises their ire the most is his spirit, which isn’t satisfied with creature comfort. His supporters are also motivated by something other than what liberalism can easily satisfy. (And this holds true whether we are talking about the nationalists or the Christian conservatives among his base.) Fear should have no competitor as the sovereign passion in a good, rational liberal order, but in Trump the glimmer of competition can be seen. In Joe Biden, however, there is no such danger: he sprinkles oil over turbulent waters, promising as he does only “competence” and more moderate politics. Yet here too, Biden’s supporters are too quick to address an immediate concern without looking to more serious long-term difficulties—for what Trump, and in a different way Bernie Sanders, indicates is that the liberal order has become too dessicated of humanity and feeling, too mechanical, too perfect. And so it courts a backlash, of which populism is not so much a manifestation, but an antibody.

American voters have tried to add new humanity to the nation’s politics in every presidential election since the end of the Cold War. They believed Bill Clinton when he said, “I feel your pain.” They gave a “compassionate” conservative a chance, and afterwards they demanded more “hope and change.” When that effort, too, succumbed to the inertia and decadence of Washington, voters turned to Donald Trump, the most decisive break from politics past. Now Joe Biden asks them to turn back, give up, and accept our country’s senility.

theamericanconservative.comThe views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

America’s rigged democracy: The oligarch takeover of America’s political system

America’s rigged democracy: The oligarch takeover of America’s political system

April 15, 2020

by Jon Hellevig for The Saker blog

The coronavirus and related financial crisis ravaging America have revealed the country to be the dysfunctional, borderline failed state that it is. America’s dysfunction is broad in scope but almost entirely traceable to one common origin: the oligarch takeover of the economymediahealthcare and political system. I have already reported on the first three of these , and here I will dissect what’s so fundamentally wrong with the political system.

Here are the links to above referenced reports:

Extreme concentration of ownership in the United States

The Oligarch Takeover of US Media

The Oligarch Takeover of US Pharma and Healthcare

Prior to having its attention diverted by the virus, the rest of the world looked on in disbelief as the circus-like US presidential primaries traipsed from state to state. Looking at the cast, one must wonder if this is really the best America has to offer. There was practically nothing of substance separating the candidates, with the sole exception of much-needed healthcare reform, a step advanced by a couple of candidates who were promptly branded by both parties as “socialists.” Meanwhile, emerging from the pack was none other than Joe Biden, a corporate stooge if there ever was one, whose history of corruption has been swept under the rug but whose dementia is becoming increasingly hard to conceal.

Nonplussed? You should be, because this is not democracy. It essentially amounts to a scripted talent show aimed at creating the impression that the American people have a democratic choice. The endless campaigning – often in disarmingly charming milieus such as rural Iowa diners – and numerous “debates” underscore the illusion of choice. But it is in fact the lack of real choice that necessitates such ostentatious pageantry.

In reality, the Democratic and Republican parties share almost identical positions on all major political questions. Neither challenges America’s hegemonic foreign policy and the war machine that imposes it; neither takes meaningful action to rein in the unrestrained oligarch crony capitalism or address the rigged financial markets; and both completely reject reforming the out-of-control healthcare system (with the exception of the few “socialists,” who are also smeared as “Russian assets”). The latest example of how in lockstep both parties march is the $2 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill, in essence just another corporate bailout. But such close alignment on the issues of true importance should come as no surprise: this “duopoly” is in fact owned lock, stock and barrel by the financial oligarchs.

In lieu of discussing the issues of true substance, the overseers of this duopoly have imposed over the public discourse an agenda that creates the appearance of an acrimonious political divide but conveniently skirts addressing the inner workings of the system. Heading up this faux agenda are climate change and the culture war, both of which encompass a myriad of sub-issues that serve to distract Americans from the insidious corporate takeover. Much as a mime pretends to be trapped in a phone booth, the two parties feign contention over these issues in what amounts to carefully staged political theater.

That America is not a real democracy but an oligarchy masquerading as one becomes even more clear when one lifts the hood on the election system, which I do in this report by providing comprehensive evidence that the system has been rigged in such a way as to institutionalize the two-party monopoly and reinforce the financial elite’s grip over it.

The three lynchpins of this ironclad grip are (1) the corrupting power of money, which has been institutionalized through campaign finance laws that have been manipulated by the Supreme Court; (2) the ballot access laws, which refer to the pre-screening rules that determine which parties and candidates can be officially registered to stand for election; and (3) the enormous bias of the oligarch-owned, propaganda-spewing media.

I will not address the media bias in this report – it should be self-evident to anyone who has followed American politics in recent years. It is sufficient to recall the blatantly partisan media attacks against Donald Trump over the last four years, which were based on statements ripped from context and exaggerated, interviews with sham experts, distorted facts, and entirely fabricated stories, not least of which was the giant hoax and nauseatingly fact-free Russiagate narrative. More recently, we have seen how the same media hyenas gave similar treatment to Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders but a free pass to the establishment’s Joe Biden. It is important to realize how the ownership of American media has been totally concentrated in the hands of the oligarchy, which I documented in the above-referenced report, The Oligarch Takeover of US Media. Such an extreme concentration of media ownership makes it easy to control the narrative and wage a totalitarian information war on opponents, both domestic and foreign.

In in this report, I will concentrate on the two other major distortions: campaign finance and ballot access, after which I will briefly list the other factors that have combined to totally discredit what used to be a democratic process.

  1. “Money is Speech” – When money talks people listen

The republic was not exactly set up as a true democracy to start with. In the beginning, voting was restricted to property-owning white men. Only late in the 19th century and after one of the bloodiest civil wars in world history, did all men get the right of vote (in theory, but not fully to this day, as we shall see). Women got the right only in 1920. Contrary to the claims of actor Morgan Freeman in a 2017 propaganda video, American history “for 241 years of democracy” has certainly not been “a shining example to the world.” (Note 1).

Early efforts to push back against the robber barons who corrupted the political system with their wealth started with the Tillman Act of 1907, which – although ultimately unsuccessful – aimed to prohibit corporations and interstate banks from making direct financial contributions to federal candidates. Campaign finance restrictions that at least had the appearance of being effective were not enacted until 1971, when, in the wake of the Watergate scandal, Congress passed the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA). However, the oligarchs soon mounted a counterattack to have key provisions of the law nullified on supposed constitutional grounds. This reached the Supreme Court, an institution whose pliability in the face of corporate interests belies its fastidiously independent veneer. In Buckley v. Valeo (1976), the Court did uphold limits on individual contributions but, crucially, removed the caps on how much a campaign could spend and also the cap on so-called “independent expenditures,” which is money spent by ostensibly third-party corporations formally in favor of a particular candidate or against an opponent. The fig leaf is that these independent expenditures are made to look as if they are not in any way coordinated with the candidate or the candidate’s committee or party, although in reality of course they always are.

In Buckley v. Valeo, the Court invented the absurd theory that money equals speech, and therefore a limitation on how much money could be used for these independent expenditures was supposedly an unconstitutional infringement of First Amendment protections of free speech. (More about this absurdity below).

In 2010, a new concentrated attack on campaign finance restrictions emerged when the oligarchy’s pocket courts further proceeded to remove the remaining obstacles for the super-rich to buy American elections. In Citizens United v. FEC, the Supreme Court struck down, again on extremely dubious free speech grounds, the rules that had prohibited corporations from funding election campaigns under the flimsy condition that the money be officially structured as uncoordinated independent expenditures. Only two months later, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit (the Deep State court par excellence) ruled that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited, either in size or source.

The super-rich have always dominated the funding of political campaigns – either directly with their money, or through the media they own, or by their shadowy non-profits – but these rulings finally obliterated a century of campaign finance laws and opened the spigots for unlimited political corruption by oligarch special interests, thus removing essentially all barriers to controlling every aspect of the electoral system. These decisions also led to the rise of the notorious Super PACs, the giant slush funds that can raise unlimited amounts of corporate funding – money that is often used on either abusive mudslinging ads aimed at opponents or for whitewashing the preferred candidates. But, of course, there is absolutely no coordination with the candidates themselves. (Trust us).

For more details on US campaign finance laws, please see the Appendix to this report.

Congress is the 5% serving the 0.1%

The number one precondition for American electoral success is either being rich yourself or being financed by the super-rich and their corporations. Usually both prerequisites need to be in place, especially for the higher offices. In no other country in the world does money play such an outsized role in politics.

Practically all US presidents have been millionaires in present day value and most of them multimillionaires. (Note 2). Interestingly, though, while Bill Clinton and Barack Obama were not millionaires when taking office, they miraculously became so after leaving the White House. This came through windfall profits from book deals and speeches to Wall Street bankers. The same happened with Hillary Clinton. (Note 3). Obama even rather quite shamelessly booked those millions while still in office. This stream of easy money is tantamount to payment for services rendered for being a loyal servant to the Deep State (the same Deep State that installed him in the first place). It also shows future inhabitants of top positions that obedience is quite lucrative. (Note 4.)

If we look at the current members of Congress – the 100 senators and 450 members of the House – 200 are millionaires and that does not even include the value of their primary residences. Including that asset would put the figure at close to 500, or a whopping 90%. (Note 5). And that is even before considering the assets formally held by spouses, in trusts or offshore. The net worth of the average congressman is at least five times the US median. (Note 6). Interestingly, most appear to mysteriously get richer while actually serving in Congress. Moreover, the wealth increase tends to be disproportionate to what could be accumulated based on their salaries. In brief, Congress is the 5% serving the 0.1%.

During the 2015-16 election cycle, presidential candidates spent $1.5 billion, congressional candidates $1.6 billion, political parties $1.6 billion, and political action committees (PACs) raised and spent $4 billion. The “independent expenditures” of Super PACs amounted to $1.6 billion. (Note 7).

Clearly, had President Trump not been a billionaire he would never have had a shot at the presidency. This time around, Mike Bloomberg, the world’s tenth richest man and the consummate corporate insider, made a stunningly explicit bid to buy the Democratic nomination, spending over half a billion dollars on campaign ads in only a couple of months. Even before facing a single voter, Bloomberg, a preposterous choice to lead the Democrats, was given credibility as a serious candidate and was able to avail himself of a large platform from which to spread his message. That Bloomberg, with his billions and his establishment-approved policies, still managed to fail so spectacularly was a news item in and of itself, causing a lot of head-scratching among the pundits. He is the exception that proves the rule. (Note 8).

C:\Users\Йон\Documents\Billionaires supporting.jpeg

Practically all of the top Democrat candidates – except Bernie Sanders – were heavily funded by billionaires, as shown in the infographic below.

For candidates who don’t happen to already be fantastically wealthy, campaign financing from big donor corporations and the top 1% is decisive. This is why congressmen tend to spend about 40% of their time soliciting campaign contributions, as former congressional staffer Mike Lofgren revealed in his bestselling book, The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government. (Note 9). Lofgren says outright that in “practice, the American political system allows only two political parties, which are wholly dependent on corporations and wealthy individuals to fund the most expensive campaigns in the world.” (Note 10).

The Democratic Party is a corporation by its own admission

Emblematic of the scam that US elections are was the Democratic Party’s admission to being a corporation.

In a trial against the DNC for the alleged rigging of the 2016 primaries in favor of Hillary Clinton and against Bernie Sanders, the DNC’s attorneys asserted that the party has every right to favor one candidate or another, notwithstanding party rules that state otherwise, because the party is a private corporation and is therefore free to change its rules as it sees fit. Unsurprisingly, the court accepted this claim. (Note 11).

In actually democratic countries, meanwhile, parties are obligated to adhere to fair and transparent statutory legal procedures in their operations. (Besides, even a corporation would have a fiduciary duty to follow the rules it has proclaimed).

  1. Ballot access restrictions

That money has corrupted the system should hardly come as a surprise, but what is less apparent at first glance is how political competition is obstructed by a massive bulwark of byzantine regulations – the ballot access laws – that are designed to protect the deeply ensconced two-party duopoly.

The dominance of the two parties has not come about as a result of voters’ sympathies as expressed in natural democratic competition, but rather through devious manipulation of laws for the aim of securing monopolies for the establishment parties. Each state has enacted its own laws for determining the procedures for parties and candidates to be officially registered to run for office. Rather than attempting to level the playing field, these laws guarantee automatic ballot access to the monopoly parties while barring the door to rivals who could potentially threaten the absolute power of the oligarchs that these parties represent.

While the Democratic and Republican parties get on the ballot automatically, challengers must attempt to file separately in each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Ballot access laws are determined by each state separately, and different rules apply for presidential, congressional, state and local elections. Presidential candidates from non-monopoly parties have to petition for ballot access in each state. This means navigating absurdly cumbersome procedures in each state separately and, among other things, having to collect some 1.5 million signatures nationwide. Furthermore, the rules and timing are different in every state, making it very difficult to overcome each state’s barrage of obstacles while meeting all of the deadlines.

In those states where a third party is unable to overcome the filing hurdles, voters are denied the opportunity to vote against the oligarchy. And of course a vicious cycle takes hold: because it is practically impossible to get on the ballot in all states, third-party candidates who are not on the ballet everywhere are seen as lacking national appeal, making them less attractive to voters (and, of course, this reinforces the difficulty of getting on the ballot in the future). Voters are loath to “waste their votes” on candidates who are deemed not to have a winning chance, an impression solidified by the lack of media coverage for such candidates.

Most states also apply rules requiring that a party meet a certain vote threshold in a recent election in order to keep its ballot status for the next election. For example, in Alabama a party needs to garner 20% in a state-wide election to retain ballot access. Such thresholds are set so high that they form an automatic party liquidation guillotine: few third parties ever make it on to the ballet and almost none make it regularly. This means that no momentum is ever achieved and the process of reforming the party and relaunching attempts to make the ballot must be done every few years. For would-be third-party activists it’s a hopeless proposition.

Such arbitrary restrictions and onerous obstacles toward even standing for election is practically unheard of anywhere else. Such a system doesn’t exist anywhere in the free world and may be bewildering for those accustomed to thinking of America as a beacon of democracy. The restrictiveness of America’s “democracy” is more appropriately compared to any number of “third-world” countries in which either only one party is allowed (such as North Korea) or where opposition parties exist but are cast to the far periphery of the political system. America certainly falls squarely in this category, but its innovation is to scrupulously maintain the façade of democratic processes, which essentially amount to carefully staged sparring, mostly over irrelevant issues, for the sake of maintaining the illusion of political plurality.

The restrictive ballot access laws also greatly diminish democratic competition in state legislative elections. In 2012, about one-third of all state House and Senate candidates ran unopposed – quite similar to how it was back in the USSR. (Note 12).

Examples of how the oligarch-owned monopoly parties are favored

The ballot access laws vary enormously from state to state, both in terms of the nature and severity of the requirements. North Carolina, with a population of about 9.8 million, requires almost 90,000 signatures. (Note 13). Oklahoma requires a petition signed by voters equal to 5% of the vote cast in the previous election. An independent presidential candidate, or the presidential candidate of a non-qualified party, may get on the ballot with a petition representing 3% of the last presidential vote. To remain qualified for the next election, a party must garner at least 2% of the total vote in the gubernatorial election.

In Nebraska, the rigged rules fast-track parties that received at least 5% of the vote in a statewide race. Nevada has doubled down on the election rigging by demanding that a party achieve 10% in the preceding general election for Congress.

Another example of egregious hurdles is Maryland’s requirement that an independent candidate collect four times as many signatures as a major-party candidate. In Florida, an independent presidential candidate needs 110,000 signatures, while Texas requires independent candidates to collect signatures equaling 1% of the previous presidential vote.

Georgia gives automatic ballot access to a political party whose candidate received at least 20% of the votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election or whose candidate in the last presidential election received at least 20%.

Kentucky uses a three-tiered system for ballot access based on the results of the previous presidential election. Only parties whose candidate for president achieved at least 20% of the popular vote are considered “political parties,” whereas those getting between 2% and 20% get the status of “political organization,” and those with less than 2% of the vote are deemed a “political group.” These classifications then determine the hurdles that must be overcome to get onto the next ballot. Clearly, parties that can’t even be classified as parties struggle to make headway.

Pennsylvania extends the “political party” status to a party that manages at least 2% in the most recent election, but after a two-year grace period a party must meet the outrageous threshold of having voter enrollment of no less than 15% of the state’s total party enrollment.

Et cetera and so on and so forth. Some states have been more innovative than others in putting in place a system that suppresses democratic choice.

Follow the links below for a closer look at all of the restrictive ballot access rules:

Only billionaires can attempt to overcome the hurdles – and even then often in vain

Only a well-established national movement – or a billionaire – could put together an organization that could even theoretically overcome the filing hurdles in all 50 states. This system of obstruction of the democratic process has worked precisely as intended: with the sole exception of billionaire Ross Perot, there has not been a single viable candidate outside of the monopoly parties.

In the 2016 election, while the Democratic and Republican parties were automatically on the ballot in all 50 states, the only other party that managed to get ballot access in all states was the Libertarian Party. The Green Party, which is a viable and increasingly popular alternative in many other countries, was left off the ballot in six states. The Constitution Party made it on to the ballot in just 24 states.

The billionaire Ross Perot ran in 1992 as an independent and in 1996 representing the Reform Party, which was set up specifically for his campaign. However, because the party had difficulty navigating the restrictive ballot laws, he was forced to run as an independent in some states. In 1992, he received 18.9% of the popular vote, making him the most successful third-party presidential candidate in terms of the popular vote since Theodore Roosevelt in the 1912 election.

You can collect all the signatures you want, but it won’t help

It was estimated that in the 2016 election an independent candidate would have needed to collect a staggering 880,000 valid signatures to meet the thresholds in all states combined. (Note 14). But because the monopoly parties regularly challenge the legitimacy of the signatures that are collected, opposition parties must collect double that amount to stay above the thresholds. This is because there is a very real and proven risk that as many as half of the signatures can be declared invalid on absurd technicalities that are concocted following legal harassment by the monopoly parties. For example, signing “Bill” instead of “William” or leaving out a middle initial are among the many pretenses for signatures being disqualified. (Note 15).

Not only must candidates collect a prohibitive amount of signatures, but whoever ventures to do so should also be ready for a protracted legal battle to defend against endless litigation instigated by an army of attorneys that the monopoly parties can summon in order to obstruct third parties and independents in their efforts to register. The establishment lawyers, aided by corrupt state officials, go to great lengths to challenge the accuracy of candidate filings and often reject the authenticity of signatures on whatever flimsy or fabricated grounds they can find. (Note 16).

A case in point is the outrageous treatment that independent candidate Ralph Nader was subjected to in his 2004 presidential bid. (Note 17). After Nader’s campaign had managed to gather and file the needed signatures in all 50 states, the Democratic Party and its stooges mounted a campaign to challenge all of Nader’s filings. They ended up filing 29 complaints in 19 states against Nader’s campaign with the aim to get Nader stricken from the ballot. And, sure enough, they succeeded in taking him off the ballot in Pennsylvania, Oregon, Missouri, Virginia, Ohio and several other states. Pennsylvania’s measures aimed at keeping independent candidates out included, in addition to the punitively high number of required signatures, a prohibition on people from out-of-state collecting signatures on behalf of a candidate and the requirement that every signature sheet be separately notarized. In Pennsylvania, a lawyer for the Democratic Party successfully invalidated – for ridiculous reasons – the authenticity of over 30,000 of Nader’s signatures. (Note 18). For Pennsylvania Democrats it was not enough, though, to simply take Nader off the ballot, they also proceeded to present him with a large bill for lawyers’ fees as a punishment for having had the audacity to encroach on the duopoly’s turf. Nader then became the first candidate in American history to be penalized, with a legal bill totaling $81,102, just for the crime of attempting to run for public office. (Note 19).

This later unfolded into a giant corruption scandal, which ultimately put members of both duopoly parties behind bars. It emerged that the Democratic Party had illegally enlisted an army of state officials to participate in the concentrated attack on Nader’s campaign. Not only were they working at taxpayers’ expense, but they even received about $2.3 million in government bonuses for their subversive activities. But, remarkably, even as it was proved that Nader’s petitions were challenged via illegal means, his $81,000 bill for the legal fees of his inquisitors stood. And no lessons were gleaned from the affair. Two years after Nader’s failed bid, Pennsylvania’s Green Party tried to run Carl Romanelli for US Senate against Democrat Bob Casey and Republican Rick Santorum. Romanelli managed to collect more than 100,000 signatures (more than the formally required 67,000), but he too ended up being challenged and knocked off the ballot. And, again, the Democratic Party’s legal fees were billed to Romanelli as the losing party. Since then in Pennsylvania numerous other independent candidates have been equally destroyed through various means.

With the path to the presidency littered with the bones of brutally snuffed out third-party bids, both Democrat-cum-Republican Donald Trump and Democrat-cum-Republican-then-independent-and-Democrat again Michael Bloomberg understood that working within one of the two parties – and using their massive financial resources – was a far more promising strategy than mounting a quixotic third-party bid. But the flip-flopping history of party affiliation of those billionaire tycoons clearly shows how the two parties are essentially interchangeable electioneering tools for the elite and that neither party is overly concerned with ideology or convictions.

The Constitution is not to blame

The morass of elections laws is often defended on the premise that it should be the prerogative of the individual states to set their own laws even for federal elections. However, Article I, Section 4 of the United States Constitution says that, while election laws are primarily set by state legislatures, Congress has the power to alter them as it sees fit. And indeed, Congress has done so by enacting uniform nationwide campaign spending laws – those very laws that were undermined by the Supreme Court’s nationwide rulings. In 1967, Congress also passed a law that mandated single-member districts across the country, which demonstrates that the Constitution and federal structure of the United States are not actually obstacles to conducting democratic reform of the ballot access laws, if only there were the will to democratize the country.

Richard Winger, in his article “How Ballot Access Laws Affect the U.S. Party System,” demonstrated that the Supreme Court has been a conniving partner in letting states tighten their ballot access laws with practically no limits. Although the Court has from time to time made a token gesture some excesses in the ballot restrictions, such instances have never managed to set a precedent for curbing undemocratic practice. Winger writes that the Court’s ballot access decisions, taken together, have actually had the effect of increasing the severity of the laws, rather than ameliorating them. (Note 20).

Winger’s article also gives a lucid account of the history of these restrictive rules and how the screws have been gradually tightened.

There is nothing good in the supposed stability that a two-party system brings

Winger writes: “In a normal two-party system, there are still significant third parties. In the United States, there were significant third parties before 1930, but there have not been any since then. The reason there are no longer any significant third parties is because the ballot access laws have become severe.” (Note 21).

Apologists for the US two-party system argue that governments are typically more stable in two-party systems, because viewpoints on the fringes of societal discourse are supposedly neutralized. Wikipedia, for example, hilariously writes: “First-past-the-post minimizes the influence of third parties and thus arguably keeps out extremists.” (Note 22).

However, a US-style managed two-party system protected by rigged laws and court rulings provides as much stability as the USSR one-party system did, all while destroying political competition and depriving the system of the flexibility and mechanisms to adapt to new realities. A two-party system lacks any safety valves to let steam out, meaning the problems just pile up until the pressure is such that the whole system implodes. This has now happened with the US economy, a circumstance for which the rigid two-party system deserves heavy blame. The economic catastrophe in the US is in plain sight for anyone to see, same with the US healthcare debacle, but it is the rotten political monopoly of the corporate elite that has so steadfastly prevented the real issues from being addressed.

What is interesting – and underscores the undemocratic nature of the system – is that surveys consistently show that independents easily outnumber both Democrats and Republicans and that voters overwhelmingly would want to have another choice. (Note 23). In fact, 43% of Americans identify as politically independent. (Note 24).

More problems have piled up to destroy US democracy

In addition to the three main issues discussed above, I will briefly list a number of additional problems that contribute to the huge democracy deficiency in the United States.

(4) The US does not have a proportional voting system, which would force the monopoly parties to be alert to the real needs of society and which would guarantee political representation for competing ideas. Instead, plurality voting is practiced, which means there is a system of single-member districts where the winner takes all even if it does not achieve a majority of votes (first past the pole). In some states, the system is modified with a runoff between the two candidates who got most votes in the first round. A truly democratic system would require a proportional distribution of seats based on party totals.

Some of the election systems are truly absurd. A good example is California’s so-called “top-two” primary system, in which all candidates from all parties must participate in a primary, while the top two vote-getters – even if from the same party – move on to the general election. That really shows that the sham two-party system is, in reality, a one-party system.

(5) The problem with the single-member voting districts has been exacerbated by the practice of gerrymandering, which refers to the system of manipulatively redrawing the boundaries of electoral constituencies. This is done to establish an unfair advantage for one of the monopoly parties or for certain favored candidates within a party. In either case, the effect is to diminish competition.

(6) Large parts of the electorate have been disenfranchised, that is, unconstitutionally deprived of their right to vote. Every state except Maine and Vermont prevents inmates from voting while in prison for a felony. Once released from prison, voter eligibility varies widely by state. A few states – mostly Southern states with large black populations – permanently deny the right to vote to all ex-convicts. That is nothing short of an extra-judiciary punishment, which is designed to prevent the poor and most oppressed sectors of US society from participating in the electoral process.

Over the last half century, the number of disenfranchised individuals has increased dramatically along with the rise in the inmate populations, from an estimated 1.17 million in 1976 to 6.1 million today. (Note 25). Nationally, 13% of the African-American population (an even higher percentage in some states) are now denied the right to vote because of felony convictions. (Note 26).

How capricious the system is can be seen from a case in Alabama, where a man was blocked from voting because he owed the state $4. (Note 27).

(7) Another absurd feature of the American election system is voter registration. In order to retain the right to vote, American voters must register in advance. In a true democracy, it is the obligation of the government to ensure that all citizens have easy and equal access to voting. It is the government’s duty to put in place a system for registering voters and not mandate that voters undergo cumbersome procedures. In democratic countries – like Russia – a voter is automatically enrolled based on residence. It is the obligation of the government to ensure that all citizens are entered in electoral rolls. Usually, this is done through the requirement that each individual provide his or her address to the authorities. But the US voter registration system is a totally arbitrary process that is frequently used to prevent – again – the poor and oppressed from voting. But sometimes the arbitrariness of this works the other way: voter registration laws are sometimes made so lax that non-citizen immigrants can unconstitutionally vote. This is the case, for example, in California, which does not require proof of citizenship for voter registration.

It gets more absurd from the point of view of a democracy when we consider that, when registering a voter, a party affiliation – Democrat, Republican or independent – must be indicated. The inability to conceal one’s political preferences means that there is no voting secrecy in the US. And this is public data for anybody to see, for example, a potential employer.

Altogether, there are 31 states (plus the District of Columbia) that indicate a party when registering voters. In aggregate, 40% of all voters in party registration states are Democrats, 29% are Republicans, and 28% are independents. Nationally, the Democratic advantage in the party registration states approaches 12 million. (Note 28).

(8) After voter registration, there is the problem of voter identification at the poll station. For example, California has no law requiring that voters present photo identification, although sometimes it ends up being required anyway. But when voters do need to identify themselves they can provide any one of the following as proof: a California identification number, the last four digits of their social security number, a copy of a recent utility bill, a sample ballot booklet sent from the county election office, a student ID or a driver’s license. Of course, a passport can also be presented, but why bother when a utility bill is enough.

(9) Interference in politics and elections by law enforcement and intelligence agencies under the control of the US Deep State. Even with practically all aspects of the electoral system totally rigged in favor of the two monopoly parties, the establishment has lately been having problems with ensuring the desired election outcomes and therefore has resorted to openly employing their administrative resources in the State Department, law enforcement (DOJ, FBI) and intelligence agencies (CIA and the other 16 sisters) to interfere in elections. Most blatantly this has occurred in connection with the events subsumed under the Russiagate witch hunt. While cynically levying false accusations at Russia for meddling in the US elections, these agencies were actually engaged in this mendacious – not to mention treasonous – activity themselves. (Note 29).

(10) Finally, in winding up this discussion of the distortions in the American political system, I would be remiss if I did not mention a particularly lurid piece of American Kabuki theater – the public debates among the candidates. Whereas in more democratic countries debates are usually open to all candidates who meet a reasonable minimum threshold in America the show is reserved exclusively for duopoly candidates. The debates themselves are mostly platforms for empty clichés, prepared one-line zingers and vacuous rallying cries about the greatness of the country. The show is carefully managed in such a way as to keep meaningful issues from being addressed, thus preventing any challenge to the agenda of the establishment.

When televised presidential election debates started in 1976, the organizer was the nonpartisan League of Women Voters. However, the LWV withdrew in 1988 in protest of the major-party candidates attempts to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. (Note 30). In the statement announcing its withdrawal, the LWV prophetically stated that “the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter.” This allowed the duopoly to seize full control of the debates through a vehicle called the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), which since its inception has been headed by former chairs of the national committees of the two major parties. In order to exclude third-party candidates, a rule was instituted that to qualify for a debate candidates must garner at least 15% in opinion polls and must be on the ballot in a certain number of states, which in itself is extremely hard, as we saw above.

Ross Perot is the only third-party candidate to have crashed the party of CPD-organized debates, having found his way onto the stage during his 1992 presidential run. The CPD itself was against Perot’s inclusion, but both major party candidates, George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, were convinced that Perot would do more damage to the other one and therefore wanted him included. As it turned out, it was Bush who miscalculated with that gamble. (Note 31).

At a 2000 presidential debate, meanwhile, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader was not even allowed to sit in the audience – much less participate – even though he had a ticket to be a spectator.

Typically for America, the CPD presidential debates are also a great platform for corporate sponsors, who display their advertisement during the show. Tobacco giant Phillip Morris was a major sponsor in 1992 and 1996, while Anheuser-Busch sponsored presidential debates in 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008 and 2012.

The way the Democratic Party has been rigging its primary debates – in an already familiar pattern – provides further insight into how the debate shenanigans work. In this recent primary season, the DNC actually changed the rules in order to exclude the undesired Tulsi Gabbard, who had committed the mortal sin of expressing views that questioned establishment orthodoxy. (Note 32). This came after the DNC earlier changed a different set of qualification rules so as to let Michael Bloomberg, who was not even on the ballot in the first primary states, buy his way onto the debate stage. (Note 33).Jon Hellevig

Some international comparison

The extreme disparity of the burdens placed on new parties versus the old established parties in the US has no parallel in any other democratic nation in the world. (Note 34). A research project conducted jointly by Harvard University and the University of Sydney ranked the United States worst in the West for fair elections. (Note 35).

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) – which is about the only international organization allowed to monitor US elections – has frequently criticized the US for its restrictive ballot access laws and other serious shortcomings. (Note 36).

Concluding remarks – RIP democracy

I have earlier written an essay on how I view the essence of democracy, which appeared as Book II “On Democratic Competition” in my philosophy book All is Art http://www.hellevig.net/allisart.pdf (Note 37). I regard true democracy as a function of societal competition, or more precisely, the competition for regulating power relations in society.

It thus follows that democratic competition must be fair and conducted on equal terms for all participants, that is, all citizens. Democratic competition is the cumulative result of complex interrelations in all spheres of social life, and it is largely the overall condition of a society that fosters or hinders such competition. The quality of a democracy – whether it is an authentic one or it is badly compromised – is a function of all these conditions in their infinite variances.

For it to be fair and conducted on equal terms, this competition must be free from monopolistic forces that prevent all members of society from participating on equal terms. As we saw from the analysis of what counts as the democratic system in the US, all of the major components affecting the democratic processes have been consolidated in the hands of the plutocracy. The oligarchs have essentially privatized the political system and are able to exert disproportionate and usually decisive influence on outcomes that should be open-ended. Having bought the state legislatures, the oligarchs have enacted self-serving ballot access laws. With their money, they totally control all election-related avenues for mass communication, including the televised debates. They own the media, which denies 99% of the population a platform for their opinions and effectively filters out all alternate views.

Freedom of speech should be seen not only as a right to voice one’s opinions in the local bar but as entailing equal access to the means of communication, i.e. the media. Of course, this is not the case, which means there is not a level playing field for democratic competition – and this means no real democracy. The oligarch takeover of the US media has meant that huge censorship and propaganda machines have replaced what should be open and free discourse. The absence of true competition in the media has meant that not just is there no real freedom of speech but that the media has issued to itself a license to lie with impunity while sanctimoniously proclaiming the existence of a free press.

Elections should be considered only as the culmination of democratic competition when all other necessary conditions in a society are in place. But where such conditions for a democratic choice are absent, it can actually be more harmful for democracy (the sovereign power of the people) to carry on voting at the polls in what amounts to sham elections. To do is to perpetuate the system and implicitly provide one’s consent to the falsehood. What the US political elite is trying to sell us is that democracy means nothing more than periodically conducting elections between nearly identical oligarch-owned parties. In other words, we are to believe that as long as the form remains the substance can be cast aside. But if measured by that standard, even the USSR was democratic – once in a while people were dutifully summoned to the polls to confirm the absolute power of the monopolist.

As I have defined democracy, it must be seen and analyzed as a social practice, a phenomenon brought about by people’s interactions in all their myriad forms. This understanding of democracy as a social practice has not been properly appreciated. Scholars have tended to define democracy through formal and legalistic criteria, such as the existence of certain institutions and certain formal supposed legal safeguards of those systems (a system of courts, periodic elections, etc.). But as long as scholars do not move beyond those concepts to analyze what the institutions actually stand for, they fail to detect – or fail to admit – the obvious deficiencies of democracy in countries in which these formal criteria are met but where the democratic processes have seriously eroded. This is particularly pertinent in countries – such as the US – where much effort has been expended to maintain the illusion of democracy. My aim has been to bring about the understanding needed tackle this question by looking at the constituent phenomena of the social practice of democracy.

Today, precious little real democracy remains in the countries that boast of being democratic. The concept of “democracy” has been totally detached from the actual reality and is being maintained as a ritual symbol. Now utterly devoid of content, the word is incanted as a charm to instill the feeling among American and European regime subjects that they belong to a good and virtuous society and that they are empowered to influence the course of that society.

The indoctrinated classes speak of liberal democracy (by which they mean Western democracy), which they imagine to be a representative government put in power by free and pluralistic elections. The fantasy extends to a belief that the system is based on a separation of powers among a legislature, executive and judiciary. Of course, this is no longer the case: these branches operate in unison and the plutocracy presides over them all. Other incantations include the “rule of law”, “open society”, “Western values”, “human rights” and “market economy.” All of these are hollow shells of ideas that in our day and time mostly serve the purpose of virtue-signaling. The reality is that Western societies have turned into full-fledged repressive surveillance and propaganda states, in which any features of an open society were long ago eradicated. There is absolutely no market economy, but rather a totally monopolized crony capitalist system in which, as we are seeing now, corporate interests are bailed out at the first sign of trouble.

Scholars claim that liberal democracy supposedly is based on the principles of classical liberalism. Nothing could be further from the truth. But, their most pathetic theory is the so-called “democratic peace theory.” This fantasy posits that these “liberal democracies” are hesitant to engage in armed conflict with other democracies. Several factors have been promoted as justifying the democratic peace theory, one more hilarious than the other:

  • Democratic leaders are forced to accept culpability for war losses to a voting public;
  • Publicly accountable statespeople are inclined to establish diplomatic institutions for resolving international tensions;
  • Democracies are not inclined to view countries with adjacent policy and governing doctrine as hostile;
  • Democracies tend to possess greater public wealth than other states, and therefore eschew war to preserve infrastructure and resources.

(List derived from Wikipedia).

Let’s imagine that to be true, then what explains that these Western countries have been ready and raring to incessantly wage wars of aggression against the rest of the world, the countries they define as not belonging to the club of democracies? Moreover, these Western “liberal democracies” do not go to war with each other, because they are all essentially occupied subjects of the United States.

In my book, I describe the conditions for an ideal, true democracy. But that does not mean that I think that such a democracy is possible; on the contrary, nothing of the sort can ever actually exist. Any open society will be attacked by oligarchs, who will try to subjugate it under their rule – and most often they succeed. This is true both domestically in their own countries and abroad. The US-based oligarchs and their helpers in Europe have over the last century assaulted every single nation on the planet. No country should ever leave itself vulnerable to such aggression. Each should devise a sovereign system of governance that is fair and based on real justice (social, economic, and moral) without playing the fool’s game of so-called Western “liberal democracy.” China has set a good example of this.

NOTES COME AFTER APPENDIX

APPENDIX

CAMPPAIGN FINANCE LAWS, SMOKE AND MIRRORS

The US is obsessed with campaign finance regulations, which are structured so that if anything is restricted by one rule, it is allowed by another. There’s a Russian adage that perfectly describes the essence of the US campaign finance laws: “If it is forbidden, but you very much want it, then go ahead.”

Below is a summary of the campaign finance laws governing federal elections.

Candidates are free to use their personal funds for campaign purposes without any limits, but accepting campaign contributions from others is restricted – unless you use any number of the gaping loopholes available to circumvent the restrictions. An individual person can contribute only $2,000 directly to a candidate, per election. But whereas donations to individual candidates are limited to that relatively small amount, the backdoor is wide open. Individuals can donate as much as $777,600 per year to party committees, while if a spouse is included, a family contribution can reach $1,555,200 per year. These limits are reported as they stand after having been generously increased tenfold in 2014 in a drive to allow ever larger sway over the elections for the super-rich. According to oligarch shills, this enormous money would not be fatal for democracy, because it is “only allowed to go to special accounts earmarked for specific purposes, such as party headquarters maintenance, recount preparations and presidential conventions” and that the “money cannot legally be used for other purposes.” (Note 38).

One of the backdoors designed for circumventing campaign finance restrictions is for a lobbyist to assist a congressman in amassing campaign finance by arranging fundraisers, assembling PACs, and seeking donations from other clients. Yet more effective than gathering hard money (direct contributions to a candidate) is to work with soft money campaign finance. Soft money is the real hardcore of campaign finance. Soft money exploits the loophole in federal campaign finance and spending laws that exempts contributions made for general party-building rather than – ostensibly – for a specific candidate. This is a form of political money laundering, because the state party committees send the soft money up to the national party headquarters, which then can spend the money at its discretion without restrictions. (Note 39).

In addition to contributions given directly to candidates (candidate committees) and parties, individuals can contribute to a variety of political action committees (PAC). The limit for individual contributions to these are $5,000. Connected PACs can be set up by corporations, non-profits, labor unions, trade groups, or health organizations. These PACs are allowed to accept contributions only from managers and shareholders or members in the case of unions and non-profit organizations. The sponsor of a Connected PAC may absorb all the administrative costs of operating the PAC and its fundraising activities. A slightly other form is the Non-Connected PAC, which must bear its own administrative costs. PACs can give $5,000 to a candidate committee per election (primary, general or special). They can also give up to $15,000 annually to any national party committee, and $5,000 annually to any other PAC.

Another vehicle designed to circumvent the original campaign finance restrictions is something called a Leadership PAC. These are PACs set up by elected officials and parties that make “independent expenditures.” If the expenditure is supposedly not coordinated with the candidate, there is no limit to how much can be spent on that candidate’s campaign. Leadership PACs are non-connected PACs, meaning they can accept donations from individuals and other PACs – so there’s another backdoor wide open. A leadership PAC sponsored by an elected official cannot use funds to support that official’s own campaign, but no worries, it may fund travel, administrative expenses, consultants, polling, and “other non-campaign expenses,” as they call them.

Move one level up on the ladder of campaign finance schemes and you encounter the “independent expenditure committees,” commonly known as Super PACs. These are campaign finance vehicles that masquerade as third-party groups allowed to advocate for or against any candidate or issues, “as long as there is no coordination, consultation or request by any campaign or candidate.” That’s a fig leaf, if ever there was one. Everybody knows that coordinating is exactly what they do.

Tired of dabbling in a few thousand dollars, the heavy hitters have embraced these Super PACs. These represent the ultimate invention in free-for-all campaign finance, as they can raise unlimited amounts of funds, with the additional beauty that corporations, too, may invest as much as they want. While traditional PACs can donate directly to a candidate’s campaign fund, the Super PACs are not allowed to make direct contributions to candidates or parties and must ostensibly limit themselves to political spending independently of the campaigns. They are allowed to pay for ads supporting their favorite candidate and discrediting the opponents as long as they “act independently” and “do not coordinate” with the official campaign of the candidate they support. So according to the legal legend, Super PACs are independent from candidates, but obviously the reality is that their directors have close personal connections to the candidate and the campaign they support. (Note 40).

Super PACs are the ultimate dens of the political spin doctors, where nasty and abusive mudslinging ads attacking the opponents of the candidates that they are whitewashing are devised.

In addition to hard and soft money, the American campaign corruption menu includes dark money. Dark money refers to political spending by nonprofit organizations (referred to as 501(c) organizations). These are allowed to raise unlimited amounts from corporations and individuals, and to spend these unlimited amounts any way they wish. They call it dark money because that’s exactly what it is: the identity of the donors and of the campaigns, candidates and other possible recipients of the money, as well as the amounts raised and spent, are exempt from disclosure requirements. The flooding of elections with dark money was made possible by the US Supreme Court’s decision in Buckley v. Valeo. (More on this below).

Dark money syndicates are distinct from Super PACs. Both can raise and spend unlimited sums of money, but super PACs must disclose their donors, while dark money syndicates don’t have to do that and must not (ostensibly) have politics as their primary purpose. This is no problem for the US oligarchs, as they simply set up both types of entities to get the best of both worlds. This way corporations and individuals can donate as much as they want to the nonprofit, which isn’t required to publicly disclose funders. The nonprofit could then donate as much as it wanted to the Super-PAC, which lists the nonprofit’s donation but not the original contributors.” (Note 41).

Money is speech. Really?

The Super PACs were in essence generated by two highly questionable judicial decisions. In January 2010, the Supreme Court established in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that the government may not prohibit corporations from making independent expenditures for political purposes. Only two months later, in Speechnow.org v. FEC, the Federal Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled that contributions to groups that only make independent expenditures could not be limited in either size or source.

The super-rich have always been dominate in funding political campaigns – directly with their money, through the media they own and by their shadowy nonprofits – but these decisions finally obliterated a century of campaign finance laws and opened the spigots for unlimited political corruption by oligarch special interests in order to give them absolute dominance and free rein for total political propaganda.

The Supreme Court’s extraordinary maneuver to further rig the campaign finance laws in favor of the super-rich was based on two questionable legal theories that took root in the mid-1970s. One held that money is speech and the other that corporations are people. (Note 42). These fabricated legal principles were needed in order to create the framework for the politically motivated claim that a restriction on the amount of money that the super-rich can use for buying elections supposedly meant an infringement on First Amendment protected freedom of speech. Then, because free speech, like any other human right, can only belong to people, the court declared that corporations are people. In the case that established these doctrines, Justice Anthony Kennedy, in the majority opinion, defended this juridical fraud by arguing that that limits on using corporate funds for campaigns were supposedly a “classic example of censorship.”

The perverted “money is speech” doctrine first appeared in a 1976 decision, Buckley v. Valeo, which invalidated some campaign-finance reforms that had come out of the Watergate drama. (Note 43). The Supreme Court then concluded that most limits on campaign expenditures, and some limits on donations, are unconstitutional because money is in itself speech and the “quantity of expression”– the amounts of money – can’t be limited. (sic! – or should we say sick!) What the Supreme Court did is to declare that corporations should have a First Amendment right to spend limitless amounts to meddle in US elections.

Obviously, the legal construction of a corporation means that it has some features of a person, mainly the right to register the title for assets and enter into agreements – which is why they are called legal persons – but the extension of corporate personhood to protection of free speech is an extraordinary invention.

The US Supreme Court, the guarantor of oligarch rule

Obviously, these court decisions are totally politically motivated and aimed at securing the super-rich’s overwhelming control over the US government. The US Supreme Court is not an independent arbiter of justice but rather a club of servants for the elite few. The appointment of a Supreme Court judge is an entirely political process. A candidate is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate. Considering that the presidents and the senators all are totally dependent on oligarch finance, oligarch media and of all the structures of the oligarch Deep State, the Supreme Court justices unsurprisingly serve the same interests. Considering that the Constitution does not set any qualification criteria for Supreme Court judges, better independent judicial protection would be achieved if the judges were appointed by lottery among all serving US judges.

This political process of appointment of judges essentially nullifies the constitutional principle of separation of powers, which holds that the three branches of government – executive, legislative, judicial – are kept independent from each other. With the politicized court the constitutionally intended checks and balances between the branches of power have essentially been wiped out.

These campaign finance shenanigans are part of an endless stream of rulings that show that the Supreme Court is following a political agenda favoring the already rich rather than administering justice. As David Kairys wrote: “At its core, this line of cases is about dominance of the political and electoral system by wealthy people and corporations and about legitimizing a political and electoral system that is unrepresentative, money-driven, corrupt, outmoded, and dysfunctional. Wealthy people and corporate managers shouldn’t dominate politics or have more and better speech rights than the rest of us. That seems like an obvious truth. And yet the Supreme Court’s recent decisions move us away from it.” (Note 44). All Court decisions in these matters (and not only these) have been heavily biased towards enabling the richest one percent to buy outsized influence of the US government. (Note 45). It is obvious beyond any doubt that the money-is-speech theory is nothing but a rhetorical device used exclusively to solidify this trend and to provide First Amendment protection for all money that wealthy people and businesses want to spend on election interference. (Note 46).

The oligarch shill Roger Pilon, in a speech to the libertarian stink tank Cato Institute, said that “the Court has said that regulations of political contributions and expenditures will be upheld only if they achieve a compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means.” (Note 47). See, compelling governmental interest is the question. With “governmental interest,” we must mean the interest of the government as a custodian of the people, that is, the people’s interest. Then the question really is what more compelling reason could there possibly be to restrict this falsely advertised “free speech” than guaranteeing an equal value to everyone’s vote. Government precisely has a compelling interest in fostering equal participation in the election processes and stopping the corrosion of democratic ideals that results when election costs spiral out of control and only the super-wealthy have influence.(Note 48).

The Supreme Court has been extremely choosy in implementing its newfound love for free speech

It is also clear that the Supreme Court has been extremely choosy in implementing its free speech policy. When it comes to forms of speech other than the dollars drowning the voices of the people, the government and the corrupted courts have had no qualms about passing laws and judicial resolutions that run roughshod over free speech. (Note 49).

More generally, the Court has not employed its free speech theories uniformly, but only when they suit their agenda. (Note 50). In the last few decades, the Supreme Court has limited speech rights for demonstrators, students, and whistleblowers. It has restricted speech at shopping malls and transit terminals. Taken as a whole the establishment’s pocket court’s First Amendment jurisprudence has enlarged the speech rights available to wealthy people and corporations and restricted the speech rights available to people of ordinary means and to dissenters. (Note 51).

The Court has in particular developed as so-called “secondary effects” doctrine, according to which the government is allowed to restrict speech if other purposes justify it. (Note 52). Thus, if the Court in reality believed its fabricated money-is-speech theory, then it would have good reason to conclude that this money-speech may legally be restricted in order to uphold the democratic principle of equal participation in elections, for which purpose it is necessary to restrict the ability of the super-rich to buy the elections wholesale. (Note 53).

It is also telling that when the Court struck down campaign finance limits by reference to this money-is-speech doctrine, it did not go all the way. What it did was to allow unlimited election campaign finance for corporations. That’s free speech, the Court opined. But at the same time, it upheld other restrictions on campaign finance. In particular, it reasoned that the restrictions on the amounts individuals could contribute to campaigns and other direct contributions (as opposed to the fictitious “independent expenditures”) were justified to avoid corruption. So, miraculously there was no problem with the same free speech principles in restricting the freedom of money-speech of the actual humans for whose protection the First Amendment was actually enacted. Essentially, corporations were given unlimited free speech protections that were denied to actual people. This just goes to show how politically expedient the court rulings are and how flimsy and inconsistent the arguments in support of them are. There is no justice, only rules that the powers that be put in place based on their judgments of how far they can go in a given situation.

NOTES:

1. Morgan Freeman Joins Propaganda War Effort https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2017/09/24/morgan-freeman-joins-propaganda-war-effort/

2. The Net Worth Of The American Presidents: Washington To Obama https://247wallst.com/banking-finance/2010/05/17/the-net-worth-of-the-american-presidents-washington-to-obama/5/

3. Lofgren, Mike. The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government (2016), p. 71.

4. Bill Clinton says he left the White House $16 million in debt https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/04/the-clintons-erased-16-million-in-debt-and-accumulated-45-million.html

The Obamas reportedly just bought a $12 million home on Martha’s Vineyard. They’re worth 30 times more than when they entered the White House in 2008 — here’s how they spend their millions https://www.businessinsider.com/barack-obama-michelle-obama-net-worth-2018-7

Lofgren, Mike. The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government (2016), p. 78.

5. Ranking the Net Worth of the 115th https://www.rollcall.com/wealth-of-congress/

6. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s Net Worth Is Higher Than You Think https://www.financialsamurai.com/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-net-worth-is-higher-than-you-think/

7. Statistical summary of 24-month campaign activity of the 2015-2016 election cycle https://www.fec.gov/updates/statistical-summary-24-month-campaign-activity-2015-2016-election-cycle/

8. Ad spending barrels past $1 billion mark as Mike Bloomberg overwhelms airwaves https://edition.cnn.com/2020/02/28/politics/2020-ad-spending-1-billion/index.html

9. Lofgren, Mike. The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government (2016), p. 67.

10. Ditto, p. 65.

11. DNC to Court: We Are a Private Corporation With No Obligation to Follow Our Rules https://ivn.us/posts/dnc-to-court-we-are-a-private-corporation-with-no-obligation-to-follow-our-rules

12. Santos, Rita. Gerrymandering and Voting Districts (At Issue) (2018).

13. Ditto.

14. The New Poll Tax: Ballot Access Laws Foil Independent Candidates https://www.opednews.com/articles/The-New-Poll-Tax-Ballot-A-by-Peter-Gemma-Election_Independent_Independent-Party_Independent-Voters-160901-723.html

15. Bennett, James T. Stifling Political Competition: How Government Has Rigged the System to Benefit Demopublicans and Exclude Third Parties (Studies in Public Choice) (2008).

The New Poll Tax: Ballot Access Laws Foil Independent Candidates https://www.constitutionparty.com/the-new-poll-tax-ballot-access-laws-foil-independent-candidates/

16. The Real Reason You Can’t Vote for an Independent Candidate https://time.com/4436805/lawrence-lessig-randy-barnett/

17. The Sneaky Silencing of Third-Party Politicians https://psmag.com/news/how-states-are-blocking-a-third-party-run#.8g9r7b4l6

18. The Real Reason You Can’t Vote for an Independent Candidate https://time.com/4436805/lawrence-lessig-randy-barnett/

19. The Sneaky Silencing of Third-Party Politicians https://psmag.com/news/how-states-are-blocking-a-third-party-run#.8g9r7b4l6

20. How Ballot Access Laws Affect the U.S. Party System https://journals.shareok.org/arp/article/view/550

21. Ditto.

22. Wikipedia: Single-member district

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-member_district

23. The Real Reason You Can’t Vote for an Independent Candidate https://time.com/4436805/lawrence-lessig-randy-barnett/

24. The Sneaky Silencing of Third-Party Politicians https://psmag.com/news/how-states-are-blocking-a-third-party-run#.8g9r7b4l6

25. 6 Million Lost Voters: State-Level Estimates of Felony Disenfranchisement, 2016 https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/6-million-lost-voters-state-level-estimates-felony-disenfranchisement-2016/

26. Fix Our Broken System

https://www.gp.org/fix_our_broken_system

27. Alabama blocked a man from voting because he owed $4 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/feb/27/alabama-voting-rights-alfonzo-tucker?fbclid=IwAR2Mqjc_KvnNkKuoRLuSpoq5w4Tle7nyLfdX_W5OuTg4jhsr0qYPkDJhJoU

28. Registering by Party: Where the Democrats and Republicans Are Ahead https://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_rhodes_cook/registering_by_party_where_the_democrats_and_republicans_are_ahead

29. Tulsi Gabbard: Presidential Candidates Must Also Condemn Election Interference by US Intelligence Agencies https://www.anti-empire.com/tulsi-gabbard-presidential-candidates-must-also-condemn-election-interference-by-us-intelligence-agencies/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Daily+Headlines

30. Fix Our Broken System https://www.gp.org/fix_our_broken_system

31. How Third Parties Are Kept Out Of Presidential Debates https://www.huffpost.com/entry/what-the-hell-how-third-p_b_11277474

32. DNC Scrambles to Change Debate Threshold After Gabbard Qualifies https://consortiumnews.com/2020/03/05/dnc-scrambles-to-change-debate-threshold-after-gabbard-qualifies/?fbclid=IwAR0ozgCxmPsSlaNSomQUZQ4XHZ-lCVQ5ehqGPjORzsN3KI1VI7crjs9VDGM

33. Michael Bloomberg is the only candidate to give money to the DNC. They just changed their rules to let him onto the debate stage https://www.insider.com/dnc-debate-qualification-rules-bloomberg-donation-2020-2

34. Santos, Rita. Gerrymandering and Voting Districts (At Issue) (2018).

35. Land of the Free? Harvard Study Ranks America Worst in the West for Fair Electionhttps://www.globalresearch.ca/land-of-the-free-harvard-study-ranks-america-worst-in-the-west-for-fair-elections/5555383?fbclid=IwAR15nyqQ6XyqHSyM5dAujkU9HJI4BO8M41Xw11htkrOEwqcf7IP9JaPSApc

36. U.S. Elections Are Neither Free Nor Fair. States Need to Open Their Doors to More Observers https://theintercept.com/2018/11/05/u-s-elections-are-neither-free-nor-fair-states-need-to-open-their-doors-to-more-observers/

37. Hellevig, Jon. All is Art. On Social Practices and Interpretation of Feelings. On Democratic Competition. (2007).

38. GOP donors use Cromnibus changes to stuff party committees’ 2016 coffers; Dem donors MIA. https://www.opensecrets.org/

39. Soft Money Is Back — And Both Parties Are Cashing In https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/04/soft-money-is-backand-both-parties-are-cashing-in-215456

40. How Super PACS Shape U.S. Elections with Advertisements That Portray Candidates in Ways Publicly Identified Campaign Ads Often Avoid https://scholars.org/contribution/how-super-pacs-shape-us-elections-advertisements-portray-candidates-ways-publicly

41. Super-PACs and Dark Money: ProPublica’s Guide to the New World of Campaign Finance https://v2-www.propublica.org/article/super-pacs-propublicas-guide-to-the-new-world-of-campaign-finance

42. Money Isn’t Speech and Corporations Aren’t People https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/01/the-misguided-theories-behind-citizens-united-v-fec.html

43. Ditto.

44. Ditto.

45. Overturning the “Money Is Speech” Doctrine https://democracyisforpeople.org/page.cfm?id=19

46. Ditto.

47. The First Amendment and Restrictions on Political Speech

https://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/first-amendment-restrictions-political-speech

48. Overturning the “Money Is Speech” Doctrine https://democracyisforpeople.org/page.cfm?id=19

49. Money Isn’t Speech and Corporations Aren’t People https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/01/the-misguided-theories-behind-citizens-united-v-fec.html

50. Ditto.

51. Ditto.

52. Secondary Effects Doctrine https://uscivilliberties.org/themes/4457-secondary-effects-doctrine.html

53. Money Isn’t Speech and Corporations Aren’t People https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2010/01/the-misguided-theories-behind-citizens-united-v-fec.html

Bernie Sanders, the ultimate fake Socialist, now shows his true face

The Saker

Bernie Sanders, the ultimate fake Socialist, now shows his true face

April 14, 2020

RT just posted an article entitled “Sanders joins Biden livestream to give full-throated ENDORSEMENT” which begins like this:

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders made a surprising appearance on former Vice President joe Biden’s livestream to give the rival for the Democrat presidential nomination an enthusiastic endorsement against President Donald Trump.

Denouncing Trump as a “racist, sexist, homophobe” who “lies all the time,” Sanders announced he was now supporting Biden’s presidential bid. The self-described democratic socialist had suspended his campaign last week, saying he would stay on the ballot to influence party policy at the convention – but apparently changed his mind on Monday.

“I am asking all Americans — I’m asking every Democrat, I’m asking every independent, I’m asking a lot of Republicans — to come together in this campaign to support your candidacy which I endorse,” Sanders said.

Finally that SOB showed his true face, the face of an ultimate fake.  His appeal to identity politics (“racist, sexist, homophobe”) also shows were his REAL values are, and that sure ain’t Socialism!

In the past, Bernie already showed his true face when he endorsed Hillary or when he backed the Israeli murderous attack on Lebanon (which, glory be to God, resulted in the “Divine Victory” of Hezbollah and arguably one of the worst defeats in modern military history for the Zionist entity).

I don’t like Trump any more than Bernie does, but I also realize that Trump is probably the main reason why we did not have a major war involving the USA (yet?), whereas Hillary and Biden are the ultimate pseudo-liberal war-mongers.  I can understand somebody hating Trump and voting for a real pro-peace candidate, but being anti-Trump and pro-Biden makes exactly *zero* sense.

Yet both Tulsi Gabbard and Bernie Sanders did exactly that.

This proves their total hypocrisy which is now simply undeniable.

This entire debacle just shows that what the USA needs is not a different, putatively better, president, but what the US State Department calls “regime change”.

I am not a Socialist, but I do know Socialism (I took the time to actually *study* Marxism-Leninism) and I have always felt offended when US Americans referred to Bernie, or even Obama, as “Socialists”.  This is utterly ridiculous and has no connection to reality.  There are NO real Socialists (of whatever variety) amongst US politicians and only a terminally brainwashed population can mistake folks like Obama or Bernie for “Socialists”.  Heck, some US Americans even believe that government bailouts of major corporation are also evidence that the US government is “Socialist”!  The lack of political education of most US Americans is nothing short of amazing.

Now you know why Socialism (nevermind Marxism or Dialectical Materialism) is never taught in the USA, not even at a college level (and when it is, it is mostly fake; Michael Parenti would be a pretty good teacher, but he is one guy in a huge system, so nobody hears his voice).

Okay so now we know that the pseudo-liberal pseudo-Left has now fully endorsed Biden.  This just goes to prove that the entire Dem Party is, and has been for a very long time, a tool in the hands of the Deep State.

I would like note that Trump succeeded in getting elected against the wishes of the folks who ran the Republican Party.  This would be impossible in the Democratic Party, which just goes to prove that while both parties are corrupt to the bone, there is still some real diversity in the GOP.  But the Dem Party truly walks in lockstep, probably towards its own demise.

For the time being, let us all rejoice in the fall of Bernie, the shyster and scumbag who tried to pretend that he was a Socialist while, in reality, being a safety valve for the Dem Party, a warmongering Zionist and a tool of the US Deep State.  Bernie will go down in history as the ultimate fake.

A few recent political developments which should not go unnoticed

THE SAKER • MARCH 25, 2020


Russian Army Trucks in Italy

The COVID19/SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is, by any measure, an immense planetary crisis which will probably change the world we live in forever. Still, there are other issues which are maybe not quite as dramatic and important, but which deserve not to be forgotten. Here are some of those

The grand betrayal of Tulsi Gabbard

It was pretty clear to most observers that Tulsi Gabbard, being the only real “peace candidate” would never be allowed to get the nomination, nevermind make it into the White House. It was also clear that Tulsi, for all her very real qualities, simply did not have what it takes to take on “The Swamp”. Still, in spite of this all, her candidacy and campaign were like a huge pitcher of cool water in the middle of an immense and dry desert. Her uniqueness amongst all the candidate is what make her betrayal even more painful for those who respected or even supported her. Once it became clear that she would never get the nomination, not only did she not run as an independent (something which Hillary seems to fear a lot), she endorsed Uncle Joe, the clearly senile, totally corrupt and generally repugnant frontman for the Clinton gang. This endorsement of Biden is something which she did not have to do, but she did it.

When the DNC stole the nomination from Sanders, he did not lead a protest or run as an independent, he endorsed Hillary. I always considered him a fraud for this (and many other) reasons. Now Tulsi Gabbard is doing the same thing, which probably is a good indicator that the Democratic Party is evil and corrupt to the core, which is hardly big news, but which is dramatically confirmed by Gabbard’s profoundly immoral decision. Why do I say that? Because Biden is the ultimate “anti-Gabbard”, she should have endorsed either Bernie, or even Trump, but instead she endorsed a morally corrupt warmonger, a total pawn for the MIC.

At the end of the day, she mostly betrayed herself, and that is the saddest aspect of this debacle.

The AngloZionist Empire – as clueless as ever

I have forced myself to listen to the daily COVID19 briefings from the White House and I have to say that Trump’s constant flag-waving and self-worshiping is almost physically painful to watch. The worst parts of these briefings are when Trump, or Pompeo, speak about the US “leadership” as if the entire planet was desperately expecting the US to help. It does not. In fact, most of the planet is disgusted by US action, be it the denial of vitally needed meds to countries like Iran or Venezuela, to the attempts are buying off German vaccines, to the mantric repetition about how great the US private sector is and how Amazon and Walmart will help us weather this crisis.

The truth is that this worldwide pandemic will allow us all to compare how different political systems, countries and cultures have reacted to the threat. In a year or so, we shall all know how free-market capitalism and libertarianism compared with social-democracies, socialist and even communist countries when their population needed protection and assistance.

True, other countries have responded with truly amazing incompetence (including several EU countries), so the inability to protect its citizens is not a purely US problem, it really affects all the countries currently subjugated by the Empire.

Finally, it appears that the China-bashing strategic PSYOP has largely failed. Most fake-news about China was quickly and rapidly debunked, and even the legacy corporate ziomedia could not completely obfuscate the fact that China is, so far, the only country on our planet which defeated COVID19.

Will there be an “ideological lessons learned” once the crisis subsides? I sure hope so!

For the time being, the Empire does what it always does, it plans to deny even more civil rights to its own people which has true patriots like Ron Paul extremely worried. What else is new?

Capitalism with a human face?

Nope, that sure ain’t gonna happen this time around.

Serbia betrayed by Europe (again!) while Russia provides vital aid to Serbia and Italy

Serbia has been betrayed by the Europeans, again. This time around, the Europeans did not bomb Serbian civilians, they simply refused to sell the meds needed to respond to the crisis. President Aleksandar Vucic has now officially declared that the EU solidarity “exists only on paper“. He then openly appealed for China to help, and help China did – the Chinese sent aircraft filled with much needed medical equipment and doctors. Then Russia followed suit and sent 10 heavy transporters filled with gear and specialists.

Even more amazing (and appalling) is the fact that the Empire does not even help its own subjects – in Italy, it was Russia again which organized a major air bridge (over 15 heavy transporters!) and now we see Russian Army units deployed in northern Italy to help the struggling Italians. Check out these short videos reports by the Russian military. You don’t need to understand Russian to see the size of the air-bridge the Russian Aerospace Forces have established or to how grateful the Italian officials are!

I have to say that the Serbs have been fantastically naive to trust the very same people who bombed them, in total illegality, for 78 days, murdering scores of innocent civilians (including those murdered in the TV stantion). For example, the Serbs could have considered how the EU has been lying to Turkey, for decades. But no, the Serbian elites now seem to think that they will be able to fill their pockets with lucrative contracts with the EU.

Hopefully, what these events have demonstrated shall not be forgotten when the next elections take place in Serbia.

That also goes for Italy.

And, finally,

The situation in northern Syria and Iraq

The situation in northern Syria and Iraq has developed pretty much as expected. So far, the Turks have been unable to re-take full control of the M4 highway. As a result of that failure, the joint Russian-Turkish patrols have not been able to move along the full length of the highway as spelled out in the agreement between Russia and Turkey. Clearly, Turkey lacks either the will, or the capability, or both, to remove the Takfiri forces from the M4 highway. So far, the Russians and Syrians have very kindly agreed to wait a little longer, but the recent visit of Russian Defense Minister Shoigu to Damascus clearly shows that big decisions are being worked on:

As for Iraq, the various Shia militias are doing exactly what everybody had predicted, they are executing limited but very disruptive strikes against US forces in Iraq. Here is a good infographic by the Institute for the Study of War which sums it up very nicely:

What we have hear is a small trickle of attacks which do not yield any major victory to the Iraqi forces, but which over time will tremendously demoralize US forces. Finally, such “death by a thousand cuts” strategy also will severely limit the operational capabilities of the US forces in Iraq: when you are mostly busy protecting yourself, you have less time to murder locals.

Still, sooner or later the Shias will have to step up their attacks because forcing the occupation forces to hunker down and actually kicking them out of your country are two very different propositions. These small strikes are very useful, not only because they demoralize the enemy, but because by forcing him to stay inside fortified “secure” areas only makes them better targets for a bigger missile strike.

This is a very sound strategy against which the US forces have no good option, other than throwing in the towel and leaving, which they will have to do anyway (except that they call it “declare victory and leave”, but its the exact same thing).

Donald Trump’s Ukraine Server- How the FBI and ODNI hacked and influenced the American psyche

March 21, 2020

By GH Eliason for The Saker Blog
Server, server, who has the Trump-Ukraine server? The answers won’t leave room for doubt on this question.
This is part one of a 3 part series showing the FBI and US Intel agency heads are complicit in the DNC hack after the fact and 2016 election interference. Early on, the FBI and Mueller found the real hackers and worked to hide them from justice and exposure in media. Without the FBI and US Intel community help, the Russia saga would have never happened and unbelievable amounts of corruption would have been exposed early on.
Part 2 will expose the identities of the DNC hackers and where they fit in the Information Operation (IO) to indict and impeach US President Donald Trump and destroy 2016 Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders as agents of Russia or under Russian influence. The US and UK Intel superstars that helped them and some of the projects they worked on including destroying US media platforms not supporting the Clinton campaign in 2016 will be exposed.
Part 3 will conclude analyzing media complicity with corporate contractors, US Intel, and law enforcement.
The only thing that matters are facts and provable evidence. 
When the NYT, 60 Minutes NY, and other outlets contacted me as the original source for what Donald Trump knows about Ukraine’s involvement in 2016 election interference and the DNC hacks, apparently they were correct. It was the only thing they got right about the events even with Pulitzer Prizes and Emmy Awards.  I’ll show why in Part 3 of the series.
Let’s start by solving the DNC hacks in a few paragraphs. If this isn’t the most conclusive evidence you’ve seen for the purpose of getting to the real hackers, don’t read any further afterward.
Shaltay Boltay (Shaltai Boltai) is the group, Robert Mueller indicted for the DNC hacks. Shaltay Boltay leaders who were in the FSB are the people Comey, Clapper, and Mueller they investigated, indicted, and proclaim guilty of the DNC hack and 2016 election influence.
The story of why Mueller and the FBI, ODNI, and NSA couldn’t prove it shows how deep corruption and criminal abetting are rooted in US government agencies and political parties today. The indicted group has a relationship with Dimitry Alperovitch and Crowdstrike, the Atlantic Council, and secondary relationships to Hillary Clinton through the DNC and the RNC through people like Senator John McCain.
Until Crowdstrike’s report late in 2016, the tools Fancy Bear used were proprietary identifiers. Even into 2017, the use of these tools was limited to Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear. These same distinct tools were used to hack the group the ODNI, FBI, and Robert Mueller identified as the DNC hacking groups, Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear.
In a security white paper entitled En Route with Sednit Part 1: Approaching the Target Version 1.0 October 2016 by ESET LLC, Shaltai Boltai was hacked by Fancy Bear in late October 2016. ESET made this attribution based on a set of specialized hacking software specific to the group Fancy Bear.
According to RFE/RLRUH8 (Ukraine Cyber Alliance) credits “mostly CyberHunta” with the Surkov e-mail theft and says it was not the result of a spear-phishing scam but rather what he describes cryptically as “special software.” He claims the malware allowed CyberHunta not only to retrieve Surkov’s e-mail but to “take the entire [Russian] presidential administration system under their control, and they gathered information right from the computers.”
This is verified by Ukraine’s SBU. “And the information that is available in these letters, and which were extracted by” Cyberhunt “, are extremely similar. That is, the methods of execution of all these things – on those documents that officially appear in the materials of criminal proceedings, “- said the head of the SBU.
Lastly,
From Forbes “For example, in October of 2016 “Fancy Bear” was accused of hacking (Shaltai Boltai) Humpty Dumpty.- Paul Roderick Gregory a contributor at CyberHunta sister publication euromaidanpress.com
What’s unique about this is Shaltay Boltay leader Anikeev “Lewis” is the actual hacker for what is known as the Surkov leaks. The hacked material was released in two parts. The first, Lewis released himself on the CyberHunta website. This hacked material was then taken directly to the Atlantic Council.
Other victims of Shaltay Boltay include the head of News Media, Aram Gabrelyanov , presenter Dmitry Kiselev , retired o􀄶cer Igor Strelkov- Girkin , presidential aide Vladislav Surkov , Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
While they are not quite on the Russian FSB to-do list, they fall nicely into Ukraine’s.
         The first information dump in the Surkov hack (administrative assistant might have been hacked) Shaltay Boltay posted the information on Ukraine’s Cyberhunta website(you need a password to post on a hacker website).
         After the first information dump was released by Shaltay Boltay leader Anikeev through the CyberHunta web platform, they were authenticated by the Atlantic Council on the 25th of October, 2016.
         Anikeev was tricked into leaving Ukraine in late October by the FSB. He went to Moscow where he was arrested and charged with treason.
         Shaltay Boltay was hacked by Fancy Bear (identified by specific tools Dimitry Alperovitch said were as strong as DNA evidence) and the hacked information (2nd Surkov dump) was released by Ukraine’s CyberHunta.
Shaltay Boltay was part of CyberHunta which was why they could post material on the Ukrainian website. Ukraine’s CyberHunta and Cyber Alliance work for the Ukrainian Information Ministry as Ukrainian cyber Intel and the DNC as opposition researchers in 2016 through Roman Burko and Christina Dobrovolska.
Cyber Alliance hackers are Ukrainian nationalists that did not work directly with Shaltay Boltay. They were hired by Alexandra Chalupa. Shaltay Boltay (Mueller’s DNC hackers) was hacked by Fancy Bear in Ukraine even though according to Mueller they were Fancy Bear…from Ukraine.
From the Ukrainian hackers own webportal InformNapalm– InformNapalm volunteer intelligence community was the original publisher of the analysis and the actual dumps of Surkov’s correspondence provided by Ukrainian Cyber ​​Alliance (UCA) in October 2016 (second Surkov dump)… A few days ago, a number of Russian news agencies published a story about the arrest of FSB officers responsible for information security, the head of department at Kaspersky Lab (Department of cybercrime investigations), and one Vladimir Anikeev who testified against another FSB employee.
Anikeev is believed to be “Lewis”, the spokesperson for Anonymous International. FSB recently decided to confuse the matters by using the discovery on Anikeev’s computer of #SurkovLeaks files, which had been obtained and published by #UCA, and had already been in the public domain.
As the speaker for #UCA, I categorically deny any connections between Ukrainian Cyber Alliance and Anonymous International. I will now try to unravel this KGB tangle.
According to RUH8 “Shaltai Boltai people post “samples” of letters of influential, but nonpublic
people, virtually without comment. And they also offer information for sale. But did any of the
allegedly sold correspondences surface anywhere? Why not? Because a complete dump would inflict a
tremendous damage on Moscow, whereas the real goal is to pull some strings and rein in a competitor for power.” .-RUH8
As you’ll see in a second, we found our DNC hackers. The same hacker (RUH8) that gave Ukraine’s CyberHunta credit for the Surkov hack and the first part of the document dump takes credit for the second document dump his group hacked from CyberHunta/Shaltay Boltay’s Anikeev after his arrest.
Notice as much as he hates Anikeev, the Ukrainian nationalist RUH8 denies a connection to the FSB regarding Shaltay Boltay’s work.
“Sometimes they get hacking help from their Russian friends, he says. “There are people there who are so angry at their own government that they are risking spy charges and passing information to us,” RUH8 explains.”- Inside The Ukrainian ‘Hacktivist’ Network Cyberbattling The Kremlin-RFERL
RUH8, the proud Russian hating Ukrainian nationalist is clear. Shaltay Boltay, its members Mueller indicted, WERE NOT working for the Russian government when this combined group hacked the 2016 US election. They were working for Ukraine.
 Initial reports out of Russian media tied Mikhailov to a group of hackers in Ukraine and Thailand called Shaltay Boltay, which means Humpty Dumpty. The group is reportedly affiliated with Anonymous, who released damaging documents on high-level Russians in 2014 and the Kremlin alleges that the arrests are related to this act, as Markov told The Daily Beast that Mikhailov: “definitely controlled Shaltay Boltay,” which “cooperated with the Ukrainian SBU [security service], which is the same as working for the CIA; he worked with them, which is obviously treason.”-Paste Magazine
What if… Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy accessing the servers to see who was “leaking DNC and Team Hillary communications” was from the cyber experts Alexandra Chalupa hired for opposition research from Ukraine?
Think about this for a second because it’s a sensible scenario. Chalupa checks in with her go-to gal Christina Dobrovolska who doubles as Ukraine’s Cyber spy manager.
Christina checks to see who’s available in Ukraine and it’s the guy whose work the entire Russian election influence narrative was based on. He’s ok because he works with Ukraine’s CyberHunta. Who cares that he hacked Huma Abedin’s Yahoo account is a wanted criminal or works for a foreign Intel service.
“At the same time her aides were creating “loyalty scores”, Clinton, “instructed a trusted aide to access the campaign’s server and download the messages sent and received by top staffers. She believed her campaign had failed her—not the other way around—and she wanted ‘to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who.”-Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnes. Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign
“In particular, he says, spear-phishing — using messages that mimic those of legitimate companies along with a request and link to change personal security information — “is quite efficient.”
 RUH8 credits “mostly CyberHunta” with the Surkov e-mail theft and says it was not the result of a spear-phishing scam but rather what he describes cryptically as “special software.”- RUH8 Ukraine Cyber Alliance- RFE/RL
The lights go on and the bell sounds. The DNC Russian hacker narrative begins. Que Alexandra Chalupa.
 “In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. “While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.”-Politico 2017 interview with Alexandra Chalupa
It turns out that Ukrainian cyber Intel RUH8’s special Russian friend in Cyberhunta is the same guy Crowdstrike, Comey, Clapper, and Mueller investigated for the DNC hack and the Yahoo hack.
There’s only one problem with the above. The Russian group Shaltay Boltay has never been caught with the Fancy Bear tools. RUH8 and Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance and Cyberhunta had them and used them and used them on Shaltay Boltay. Because the hackers outed themselves by hacking each other with Fancy Bear tools, we have the entire group and subgroups Intel operatives as Chalupa called them in Ukraine.
“So the help of the USA… I don’t know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means
for this. And I don’t think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp movements in
international politics.” We have no Need of CIA Help Ukrainian Hackers of #Surkov Leaks-RUH8 Ukraine Cyber Alliance, Cyberhunta, Shaltay Boltay, Fancy Bear, Cozy Bear
Reread RUH8’s statements. This is a guy that is dying to do a book and movie deal to finally get the acclaim he thinks he deserves. Let’s give him one- Capturing the DNC Hackers.
After everything was said and done by Comey, Clapper, and Mueller about Russian hackers and influence, Shaltay Boltay’s archives (aka Fancy Bear servers) had to be retrieved from UKRAINE.
“Anonymous International founder, who is now in jail, reported that he had stored his databases with stolen information in a Kiev apartment. Thanks to Anikeev’s testimony, the investigators found out that the information carriers (servers) with the hacked archives are stored in Kiev.”

Why did Ukrainian Intel operatives do all this?

Dimitry Alperovitch of Crowdstrike has an ongoing “Twitter buddy” relationship with Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance, RUH8, and Cyberhunta, which includes Shaltay Boltay dating back to at least 2016.
“Hey. I am the press secretary, a simple Ukrainian hacker, more precisely: we are hackers, but imagine a masked man who speaks to you. I do not do OSINT, I do not tell schoolchildren how to hack websites, I do not care about who and what agreed, I’m not an army or a hundred, I do not obey orders and do not follow a ceasefire, build democracy and fight for justice, I am a hacker, and my goal is to break!
 To break, spoil, rob, entangle, blackmail, frighten, divulge, mock and mock the defenselessness of the victims. Because I can. Hate is my name. I will harm the Russian Federation. And I do not care who you are – a liberal or a guardian, Russians must suffer. Traitors and spongers of Russian invaders must suffer. Pensioners and functionaries, Buryats and October, must suffer. If I find a way how to harm you, even for a penny, I immediately use it. Do you live in Russia? Bad luck. I will not tolerate, will not be merciful, I do not forget and do not forgive.- RUH8
C:\Users\GH\Desktop\spy for hire\CYBER TERROR PART 6 REAL TERRORISM\photos used\threat\RUH8 PROTECTING PEOPLE PRAVY SEKTOR CUTS-twitter.com-2019.04.28-01-33-28.png
Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance (RUH8) and Cyberhunta (including Shaltay Boltay) work under the flag of Dimitro Yarosh’s Pravy Sektor Ukrainian nationalism. The groups and their web platforms were started by former Pravy Sektor spokesman Sviatoslav Yurash. Yurash was also the spokesman for the 2014 EuroMaidan coup, the Ukrainian military, and is the liaison between the ultra-nationalists and the Ukrainian Diaspora through his position as Deputy Director of the Ukrainian World Congress affiliate in Kiev.
All of this started as an Influence Operation in Ukraine that resulted in the 2014 coup and subsequent move to hard Ukrainian nationalism. It bled into the United States as the 2016 election season heated up.
Suffice to say, means, motive, method, and opportunity have been established by the hackers themselves. Sources friendly to their efforts and neutral mainstream sources including RFERL verify it.
If you’re not convinced now, read no further.
         They (as a foreign Intel service) interfered in the 2016 US election.
         They, along with members of the US Intel community tried to destabilize the government in Russia and the USA.
         They shaped and promoted a false narrative that shipwrecked US and Russia relations.
         Their work helped Crowdstrike shape the Fancy Bear-Cozy Bear narrative.
         They shape the US Intel view of what’s going on in Ukraine allowing for crimes against humanity in Donbass (LNR &DNR) to go unaddressed.
         Later in the series, I’ll show these same groups (Ukraine Cyber Alliance, RUH8, Cyberhunta-Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear) were used to manufacture evidence that will be used in the #MH17 trial at the Hague in conjunction with Bellingcat.
         US Intel for hire superstars used the Fancy Bear groups in conjunction with the #Propornot project illegally to identify and take down news and commentary platforms in the US and EU that published stories against the narratives, they were developing and promoting.
         They illegally targeted people expressing social and political opinions. All of this was with the blessing of period ODNI and FBI leadership.

The Disproven Conspiracy Theories about the DNC Hack and 2016 Russian Election Interference

The disproven conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia and Russian election interference is the ones that were proven baseless in court, not the court of opinion. The evidence was fabricated or just not there, to begin with. The FBI’s criminality hiding the real criminals is examined below.
But, these fake stories are still promulgated in an ongoing effort to sabotage the 2020 election cycle and tear the US social fabric apart. Examples of this are- Why Trump Still Believes (wrongly) that Ukraine Hacked the D.N.C.The Conspiracy Theory So Far Out There Even Trump’s Biggest Defenders Are Walking Away From It and @ScottShaneNYT How a Fringe Theory About Ukraine Took Root in the White House.

This article is going to open up the potentially wide-ranging crimes at the FBI aiding and abetting criminals for purely political reasons.

 There are only two possible reactions you can have to this. There are some people that will react emotionally or politically and the consequences be damned. As long as it happens to someone they are sure they hate, why care?
When precedents are set, they work both ways. When political leaders like Trump or Sanders are tried in the court of opinion and declared loyal to a foreign government because the other party doesn’t like them. The method is set for every other person that graces the social or political stage.
Look further into the distance and realize this flows downhill. If it’s fine for political leaders, don’t be surprised when it’s your turn at bat because someone doesn’t like you. This kind of lawlessness spreads quickly as we’ve seen since 2016.
Or maybe it’s time to objectively look at the facts and see where the evidence leads in an unbiased way. That’s it. That’s all.
All of the common knowledge stories rely on readers to assume ODNI head James Clapper’s 2017 report was conclusive and the Mueller investigations were successful. Neither of them was, nor could they ever be.
James Clapper was responsible for the evidence Intel agencies presented in the January 2017 report trying to hamstring the newly elected Trump administration for political reasons.
If ODNI chief Clapper believed the 17 Intel Agency strong report, why couldn’t he stand by the same fact-base in 2018? Clapper no longer cited his iron-clad evidence he presented as proof of Russian interference or the DNC hacks.
In 2018, former ODNI head Clapper’s solid proof of Russian interference in the 2016 election became 78,000 people voted against Hillary Clinton and she lost Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Notice Jimmy Clapper wasn’t quoting his solid gold January 2017 report anymore.
Who were these 78,000 Clinton haters that cost the DNC the election in 2016?
Back when there was a real Clinton administration, First Lady Hillary Rodman Clinton demanded the US get involved in the Bosnian war. Hillary Clinton supported KLA terrorists and extremists through a bombing campaign. US bombers drove the families of these voters into the arms of murderers so extreme, they were cutting organs out of living people to sell on the black market. Clinton had them taken off the official terrorist lists to the frustration of negotiators trying to make peace during the war.
The Serbian Diaspora voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania usually votes for the Democratic ticket, that is, unless your name is Hillary Clinton. This was a bloc vote against Hillary Clinton who they hold responsible for the murder of their families at the hand of terrorists. It’s why Clinton ignored those states campaigning. Clinton mistakenly thought having all the major Diaspora votes in swing-states would be enough.
The problem with the evidence of the Russian government interference in 2016 is it had to be manufactured and repeated by a compliant media to exist.
What will be shown through mainstream sources is the Russian FSB and GRU attacks on the American psyche was produced by domestic and foreign criminals that were hostile to the Russian government for nearly a decade before the DNC hacks. The hackers who are IO specialists were targeting Russian politics, not the US.
Robert Mueller and James Comey are accessories after the fact. They tried feverishly and unsuccessfully to incriminate the wrong people because the facts expose large scale political corruption well beyond what is currently known and it all revolves around Ukraine.
According to PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) in a study titled Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017 there was no Russian impact on the election and they used 6 research standards to measure it.
If you don’t trust official studies done under the Trump administration tenure, Jon Solomon had this to write after uncovering 2016-17 FBI memos: The piecemeal release of FBI files in the Russia collusion investigation has masked an essential fact: James Comey’s G-men had substantially debunked the theory that Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Moscow by the time the 45th president was settling into the Oval Office, according to declassified memos, court filings and interviews.
And that means a nascent presidency and an entire nation were put through two more years of lacerating debate over an issue that was mostly resolved in January 2017 inside the bureau’s own evidence files. The proof is now sitting in plain view.- FBI’s Russia collusion case fell apart in first month of Trump presidency, memos show
This is why James Clapper changed his tune so radically. When you look at the above, Hillary was taken out behind the woodshed in 2016 for good reasons. Ask yourself what does it have to do with Russians, Russia, or Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders? The only scenario all the evidence supports is Hillary Clinton stepped on a proverbial rake and made herself unelectable in 2016.

FBI, CIA, and ODNI criminal conspiracy against the United States

Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution– Information available as of 29 December 2016 was used in the preparation of this product.
Scope
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.
I refuse to give James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, or Robert Mueller the benefit of the doubt and call them ignorant little men.  They acted with full knowledge of what they were doing. Along with all of the agencies’ department heads, these men used their offices trying to try to overthrow the election of the President of the United States and change the fabric of US society by creating irreparable political and social division.
American officials, sworn to defend the USA used their power to fabricate a political narrative they called Intelligence to create their own foreign policy (Russia/Ukraine)and domestic policy(including media, political norms and policy) for the United States.
As late as 2018, #JamesComey was clear when he dismissed a House intelligence committee report that found no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign as a “political document”. When the ODNI report was written, he knew there was no evidence of Donald Trump-Russia collusion. They all knew.
ODNI Clapper, FBI Comey, John Brennan and Special Counsel Mueller knew in 2017 that the US Intel community conceded there was no coordinated effort by Russia to influence the 2016 election months before.
They successfully divided the United States socially and politically in ways Orwell would be proud of.

Why did US political activism by sworn officials cross a bridge too far?

It all started falling into place after 9-11. Congress decided the FBI needed to get into the Intelligence business. At the time, the FBI fought the changes saying it would hurt their criminal investigation mandate. Because the CIA legally can’t operate domestically, the FBI was rebooted to do the job.
The 2000s version of the FBI was right. The FBI went from being the world’s premier criminal investigation agency to one of the worst imitations of a private sector  CIA domestically and around the world.
The same man the FBI called a nuisance and danger to national security after the twin towers collapsed in New York networked intelligently enough to become the trainer of choice for the FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, NATO, et al.
This new mandate from Congress created over 5000 new Intel positions right away inside the FBI that were filled with outside contractors.
Today’s Intel agency leaders including Homeland Security and FBI department heads were his students from the early 2000s onward. The rise and risk of Intelligence for hire is detailed in U.S. Intelligence Crisis Poses a Threat to the World (Part 1)
This particular agency trainer almost singlehandedly started the US side of the social-political Russian collusion storyline by himself labeling anyone outside his narrative Kremlin trolls and pro-Russian influencers.  He made looking for pro-Russian collaborators fashionable in a post-2016 world in a way that would make Joe McCarthy tingly.
He personally is why media came under so much scrutiny and groups like Propornot were formed to destroy media that didn’t agree to the McCarthy-like narrative, alternative media sources that spoke against the Clinton campaign and post-2014 Ukraine. Watch as it starts again as the 2020 election cycle heats up.
Along with the other US Intel actors, he aided and abetted the murder of journalists in Ukraine by providing the tools, training, means, and method to set it up. It’s quite an embarrassment for Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Mueller, and the agencies, et al.
Imagine, one of the rock-stars of modern Intel being found in that position after your agencies were trained to look at information like him for over a decade. It’s no wonder they hand-fed the current Russia policy narrative he developed to MSM.
In part2, I’ll detail who he is, many of the crimes, along with the real identities of the DNC hackers.
Fusion GPS and Patterning the Trump-Sanders Accusations and Russia Investigation
If the ODNI and FBI engaged in consistent patterns of activity for political reasons that tear the societal fabric of the USA to support corruption that destroy the lives of US citizens, change foreign policy, and erode citizen’s rights, should it be investigated?
It started with Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primaries. This bled into the 2020 primaries.
Sander’s accusations started with “Adam Parkhomenko, a former aide to Hillary Clinton who has repeatedly suggested that Senator Bernie Sanders owes his popularity to Russian support, backed the attorney’s abortive bid for president.”- NYMag
Sander’s accusations of Russia collusion ended with –“A 37-page indictment resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation shows that Russian nationals and businesses also worked to boost the campaigns of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Green party nominee Jill Stein in an effort to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton”-USA Today
Robert Mueller’s investigation into Bernie Sanders started with a tweeted accusation. Most of the Russian nationals not named were publishers and journalists that support Bernie Sanders and were listed by the FBI trainer who started accusing American web portals of being influencers for the Russian government.

Fusion GPS and the Steele Dossier

Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, the co-founders of the private investigative firm Fusion GPS never tried to vet any of the information Christopher Steele gave them in the infamous and tantalizing Steele Dossier.
The closest anyone has come to a real source is an unknown Russian émigré in the US provided the narrative for Christopher Steele (foreign Intel agent) about events he/she had no first-hand knowledge of.
“Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. “Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.,” Ohr scribbled in his notes.”- The Hill
Is it possible for investigative journalists like Simpson and Fritsch not be even remotely curious about the legitimacy of such scandalous information? This Intel is about an elected US President and they claim they were acting patriotically.
Fusion GPS Founders On Russian Efforts To Sow Discord: ‘They Have Succeeded’. This is quite a statement considering when asked, they admitted they knew absolutely nothing about Steele’s politically motivated fiction.
It’s easy to see why such an appalling politically driven fantasy fell apart after it was given a real examination. But, that’s not the point.
Simpson and Fritsch turned around and gave the Steele Dossier to Republican Senator John McCain (the anti-Trump), knowing full well if he acted in character the Dossier would be made public.  Why McCain’s office? The answer is included below.
“The Washington Times first disclosed the document on April 25, 2017. Republicans later told the Justice Department the filing should have set off alarm bells inside the FBI about Mr. Steele’s credibility, given his admission he had accepted gossip.”-The Washington Times
“The top judge on the federal court overseeing the U.S. government’s surveillance activities accused the FBI on Tuesday of providing false and misleading information about Carter Page in applications to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser.”– The National Interest
“Before evaluating the media component of this scandal, the FBI’s gross abuse of its power – its serial deceit – is so grave and manifest that it requires little effort to demonstrate it. In sum, the IG Report documents multiple instances in which the FBI – in order to convince a FISA court to allow it spy on former Trump campaign operative Carter Page during the 2016 election – manipulated documents, concealed crucial exonerating evidence, and touted what it knew were unreliable if not outright false claims.
If you don’t consider FBI lying, concealment of evidence, and manipulation of documents in order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign to be a major scandal, what is?”– The Intercept

ODNI, FBI Hacked and Influenced the American Psyche

Throughout the entire hack and election influence saga US Intel officials acted like spokesmodels for Ukrainian –American Diaspora leader Alexandra Chalupa. They constantly acted for the benefit of private citizen groups and companies who wanted to change US foreign policy and the fabric of society in the USA.
The following is from a man that knows the facts. How can you get such a senior position otherwise? Here’s his big media sound bite;
“FEINSTEIN: And what would those goals have been?
PRIESTAP: I think the primary goal, in my mind, was to sow discord, and to try to delegitimize our free and fair election process. I also think another of their goals, which the entire United States intelligence community stands behind, was to denigrate Secretary Clinton and to try to help then — current President Trump.”- Vox
“Russia, for years, has conducted influence operations targeting our elections,” an FBI agent told Congress on Wednesday. But what made 2016 different was the degree of interference, facilitated by the Internet, said Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division.”.-(CNSNews.com)
And here are Bill Priestap’s conclusions after the media turn away and he’s forced to put on his big boy pants and own up to the evidence the FBI has after years of investigation.
“Further, all three witnesses in that hearing—Ms.Manfra, Dr. Files, and FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Bill Priestap—agreed that they had no evidence that votes themselves were changed in any way in the 2016 election.”- REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE ON RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION VOLUME 1: RUSSIAN EFFORTS AGAINST ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS
Therein lays the crux of the problem. The FBI wanted the election interference story to resonate publically but under oath, there was never any evidence.
According to the IG Report, FBI leaders, lawyers, and investigators were pulling out all stops to derail Donald Trump before and after the 2016 election. How did this organized, continuous, multi-faceted, and multi-event war play on the American psyche? You tell me.
FBI Tried to Influence the Trump Campaign“While the results of any physical searches related to Page are unknown, what is known is that federal spying on the Trump campaign through Page went further. Prior to the FISA surveillance orders, the FBI tasked informant Stefan Halper with targeting Page. (Another agency may have as well.) The IG report revealed that in targeting Page, Halper sought specific details from Page related to the Trump campaign, and fed Page unsolicited (and potentially illegal) advice concerning campaign strategy.”-The Federalist
The only thing to consider is the FBI may have conducted the biggest set of serial crimes of this decade by a law enforcement agency.
This effectively divided every American on a social and political basis. It wasn’t a single event but a continuing policy surrounding the election, foreign policy, and the lengths federal investigators could go to hamstring the executive branch for political reasons.
Before the December 2016 ODNI-FBI GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity JAR, there was no proof of Russian intervention except what came out of the Clinton camp. James Comey denied it. After the ODNI JAR, there was no evidence of Russian intervention in the 2016 election.
The report itself and the actions surrounding it were nothing short of a successful politically charged foreign policy intervention by the FBI and ODNI. How can I say this?
Mueller indicted a Russian company called Concord Management & Consulting LLC for being the vehicle the Russian government used to interfere in the 2016 election. All the information Robert Mueller, James Comey, and James Clapper had to go on came from the indicted DNC hacking group themselves.
After establishing this, we’ll look at the ongoing relationship between the investigators and the criminal hacking groups to reshape American politics, cover-up enormous corruption in the Obama administration, Clinton campaign, and hamstring an elected US President.
The other company called the Internet Research Agency was part of Concord Management.
“In 2014, according to Russian media, Internet Research Ltd. (Russian: «Интернет исследования») was founded in March 2014, joined IRA’s activity. The newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that this company is a successor of Internet Research Agency Ltd. Internet Research Ltd. is considered to be linked to Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the holding company Concord Management and Consulting. The “Trolls of Olgino” are considered to be his project. As of October 2014, the company belonged to Mikhail Bystrov, who had been the head of the police station at Moscow district of Saint Petersburg.
Russian media point out that according to documents, published by hackers from Anonymous International, Concord Management is directly involved with trolling administration through the agency. Researchers cite e-mail correspondence, in which Concord Management gives instructions to trolls and receives reports on accomplished work. According to journalists, Concord Management organized banquets in the Kremlin and also cooperated with Voentorg and the Russian Ministry of Defense.”-Wikipedia
This information is well documented enough to have an almost accurate Wikipedia listing barring one glaring point Mueller, Comey, and Clapper needed to ignore to build their Trump-Russia collusion, Russian election interference, and Russian hacking narrative.
Scott Humor at the Saker.is researched the Internet Research Agency extensively. In an article entitled “A Brief History of the Kremlin Trolls,” he shows clearly the Internet Research Agency only existed on paper. Even then, it ceased to exist in 2015. It was liquidated and the company emerged as a construction retail company called TEKA.
This brings us to the foreign policy objective the US Intel community and US Intel agencies hacked the American psyche very successfully to reach:
“On 29 December 2016, the White House accused and sanctioned the FSB and several other Russian companies for what the US intelligence agencies said was their role in helping the Russian military intelligence service, the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) disrupt and spread disinformation during the 2016 US presidential election. In addition, the State Department also declared 35 Russian diplomats and officials persona non grata and denied Russian government officials access to two Russian-owned installations in Maryland and New York.”- Wikipedia
Here’s the fun part. Everything we know about 2016 Russian involvement stems from this same small group that ODNI and FBI had to embellish by magnitudes to link them to a Russian government operation and then indict.
While they were the hackers and Information Operators the FBI investigated and Robert Mueller indicted, the hacking groups weren’t working for the Russian government for the Yahoo hack or the DNC hack and 2016election hacks.
Dmitry Dokuchaev used his position to commit crimes against Russia and the USA which helped the FBI to build the one narrative they needed to fabricate official Russian government involvement.
         U.S. v. Dmitry Dokuchaev, et al.
         “Dokuchaev is a former hacker from Yekaterinburg. He was reportedly blackmailed into joining the FSB, Russia’s domestic intelligence agency, after his private exploits became known to the service, but then built a successful career, rising to the rank of major. The Russian investigation appears to link him to a group called Shaltai Boltai, or Humpty Dumpty, which broke into electronic mailboxes, mostly of Russian officials and business people, obtained compromising information about them and then either sold or published it. The group’s work was a combination of blackmail, competitive intelligence and public relations; Dokuchaev’s alleged role was to direct the group toward particular victims and cover up its activities while pretending to investigate it.”- Bloomberg- What the Yahoo Hack Says About Russian Spies-The 2014 hack appears to have been a business scheme run by Russian intelligence officers
The FSB agency mandate is limited by law to work inside Russia, not outside. This alone makes it illegal for the FSB to engage in state-level espionage and hacking operations outside.
The FSB has an incredible amount of legal authority to surveil all information passed on or through Russian servers.
Jeff Carr noted the Russian Law on the FSB (article 15) states that “all individuals and legal entities in Russia, providing postal services, telecommunications of all kinds, including systems, data communication, satellite communications, are obliged at the request of the Federal Security Service to include in the extra hardware equipment and software, as well as create other conditions necessary for the operational and technical measures by the Federal Security Service.”
And yet;
In case you missed it, the FSB through Dmitry Dokuchaev’s Shaltay Boltay was accused of illegally hacking accounts of Russian officials. Why would the FSB hack these officials it legally had almost unlimited jurisdiction to the information without hacking?
For anyone clinging to the Yahoo or DNC hacks with a purely political mindset; this is the same as walking into a bank vault with $1 billion dollars in it. You know you have the legal right to walk away with any or all of it. But, just for giggles, you hire a foreign criminal to rob the place which makes you liable for bank robbery, conspiracy, and treason.
And in the real world case of Yahoo, you get caught because the Canadian hacker you illegally hired for the Yahoo hack broke the Canadian criminal code of silence when he testified against you.
To put it delicately, this would have to be the most inept crime of all time. For this to be true, Dokuchaev must have just fallen off the turnip truck and hit his head. Got whacked with the ole’ ugly stick at the same time he stepped on a rake as he was laughed at by a 12-year-old girl who wound up and kicked him in the…….Seriously? That’s as insulting as it is injurious.
Instead, what we have is a group of Russian criminals (Shaltai Boltai) who are not working for the Russian government and continually try to hack Russian officials for blackmail. According to Stratfor, “In a 2015 interview, the leader of Shaltai Boltai, code-named “Lewis,” said his group was driven purely by money, not ideology… The narrative linking Shaltai Boltai to the FSB officers came just three days after the initial stories suggesting the FSB officers were the sources of leaks to U.S. intelligence.”
But were Dokuchaev and Shaltai Boltai (Shaltay Boltay) feeding US Intelligence information? If so, what kind of information?
The “Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution” the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ODNI quotes Shaltay Boltay because this group is the primary source of information about both events because they created what we know about them.

Dokuchaev, Shaltay Boltay, the FBI, and Robert Mueller

Summary:
The FBI interviewed members of Shaltay Boltay groups and asked for help writing the 2016 election hacking and influence story. Shaltay Boltay could play the heroes and the villains. They were heroes because they created the influence story about a non-existent company that no one could find that Putin ordered to influence the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump.
They were the villains because they were the DNC hackers. If Shaltay Boltay cooperated to implicate Trump and Putin, US citizenship and jobs were waiting for them.
Dokuchaev and his working group Shaltai Boltai (Shaltay Boltay), otherwise known as Anonymous International or Humpty Dumpty  are the source for everything known about the Russian Internet Agency (IRA), Russian election interference, and provides the Russian FSB-GRU connection through Dokuchaev needed to make the Russia-DNC hack narrative almost work.
Shaltay Boltay are the Yahoo hackers that stole Huma Abedin’ State Department logins. This is important because it also separates them from being Russian government operatives.
More importantly, their own self described claim to fame was creating realities. Shaltay Boltay primary work is in Information Operations. The founder of the elusive Shaltai Boltai hacker group has been uncovered as Vladimir Anikeyev, a native Dagestani and expert in “black PR.”
It’s no secret today Comey’s FBI and the Mueller investigation were working hard to grasp at any straw they could to derail the Trump presidency. Even though they knew there was no collusion, their teams worked overtime to prove it by pushing half-truths in an invented narrative.
What brings the FBI investigators and Comey’s behavior to a collusion, harboring, and abetting threshold is they identified the leaders of the hacking groups early on, the hackers, and ignored them to hide corruption.

Was the ODNI and Comey’s FBI an accessory after the fact to the DNC Hacks and murder? – Harboring Criminals

Comey’s Russian collusion team and the Mueller probes pushed the 2016 investigations away from the criminals they were supposed to be investigating.
         The FBI, Comey, and Mueller knew Shaltay Boltay (Shaltai Boltai) were part of a higher level group. While this group worked for money, not politics, the higher-level group are extreme nationalists.
The big question if their entire history is blackmailing Russians, who are they working for in relation to the US election?
         The FBI knew this group fabricated the only basis used for a Russia election interference investigation. The FBI knew they did this from Ukraine.
The reason the FBI and Mueller knew the Russian government FSB-GRU connection to the hacks was fabricated was the leaders of Shaltay Boltay were extremely clear and public about hurting the Russian government and Russians.
         The FBI, Comey, and Mueller knew from 2014- late 2016, the indicted and ignored involved leaders and US oriented parts of Shaltay Boltay were located in Kiev, Ukraine.
Shaltay Boltay leaders were wanted criminals and worked against the Russian government 2014-2016 when they fled to Kiev. This is evidenced by the so-called Surkov hack. The emails were released through the working group Shaltay Boltay was with 2014-16.
         The FBI and Mueller had this group’s IP addresses which Mueller used in his indictments and the willing cooperation of the server company that hosted them.
“If we consider the situation from the other side, it is unclear why the FBI and related experts are talking only about our company,” said Fomenko. “After all, the U.S. intelligence report says that the hacking was staged from eight IP addresses, six of them belonging to our company (the criminals used our equipment), and two other companies being not connected with us in any way. One of them is located in the Netherlands, I don’t know about the other. But it’s all just about us. What is this? Prejudice?”-RBTH
         The FBI and Mueller refused to investigate or interview the owner of the server (King Servers) the DNC hackers used who wanted to testify. Yet, Shaltay Boltay’s IP addresses were considered key evidence anyway. Apparently, the DNC hackers owed him money.
The FBI knew the groups involved physical location and concealed it to shield them from the investigation by constantly attributing the DNC and subsequent hacks to Russia.
         The FBI and Mueller purposefully stayed away from the main group and targeted sub-groups, outliers, and used false accusations that protected the Executive branch from being dragged into the investigation. At the very least, all of this happened as the direct result of Obama’s Ukraine and Russia policies.
Shaltai Boltai’s Yevgeny Nikulin was interviewed by the FBI. According to Disobedient Media’s Adam Carter “Nikulin has stated in a letter, passed to his lawyer Martin Sadilek and reported by Moscow Times, that, after his arrest on October 5, 2016, he was visited by the FBI several times, the first of which was on 14-15 November, 2016.
From the Bell– In it, he also mentions attacks on the servers of the Democratic Party committee. Kozlovsky writes that he was engaged in them on behalf of the FSB officer, whom he calls “Ilya.” Later, the hacker began to claim that under the pseudonym “Ilya” he was supervised by FSB Major Dmitry Dokuchaev.
         The FBI investigators allegedly offered payment for information implicating Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
On 5/11/17 Newsweek ran an article headlined FBI PROBE INTO CLINTON EMAILS PROMPTED OFFER OF CASH, CITIZENSHIP FOR CONFESSION, RUSSIAN HACKER CLAIMS.“[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton’s inbox for [U.S. President Donald Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin],” Nikulin wrote, according to The Moscow Times.”
         The FBI, Comey, and Mueller knew Shaltay Boltay was part of a foreign Intel structure whose goal since 2014 has been to disrupt US-Russia relations.
         The FBI knew Shaltay Boltay as part of Ukrainian CyberHunta worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign as opposition researchers through the DNC.
Alexandra Chalupa used private/public Ukrainian Cyber Intel groups Ukraine Cyber Alliance and CyberHunta(part of the Ukrainian Ministry of Information) to do opposition research. Roman Burko and Christina Dobrovolska (US State Department contractor, liaison to the US-Ukrainian Diaspora) led the groups under the Information Ministry.
         The FBI knew the main workgroup also worked in conjunction with Crowdstrike, the Atlantic Council, and members of the US Intel community. The groups were used to fabricate anti-Russian narratives for NATO and statements delivered to US Congressional committees voting on support for Ukraine.
The Daily Beast-The deputy head of its now-defunct Center for Information Security, Sergei Mikhailov, was arrested, along with two colleagues and an employee of the cybersecurity firm Kaspersky, Ruslan Stoyanov, for allegedly passing secret information to Western intelligence agencies.
         The FBI knew only Crowdstrike, Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance (RUH8) and Cyberhunta had possession of key component tools of the DNC hack that Crowdstrike’s Dimitry Alperovitch stated were like DNA evidence.
The FBI knew Crowdstrike relied on information they shared with the Ukrainian Intel groups.
         According to Wikileaks, the phishing attack on Podesta originated in Ukraine.
         The FBI and Mueller knew the groups labeled Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear along with American and British Intel community members were involved in setting up the Ukrainian Information Ministry’s murder for hire platform Myrotvorets beginning very in early 2015.
These same groups protected by the FBI worked with US & UK Intel Community superstars to set up and refine Myrotvorets. This was Ukraine’s hit-for-hire listings that named the enemies of post-Maidan Ukraine. It started with the murder of journalist Olez Buzina one month after the webplatform went live. At the time it went live, I predicted the first murder would soon follow. Unfortunately, it did.
         The FBI knows the core members responsible for all this and that can answer for it are the ones they concealed from the investigation still operate in Ukraine.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1071, anyone who “harbors or conceals” a person to prevent their “discovery and arrest” is guilty of a crime.

TheTrump-Ukraine Servers

Servers, servers, let’s see who has the Trump-Ukraine server. I chose the following article quote from @benshapiro out of the all the rest of the barrel for the colorful language he uses. Imagine a lone DNC server determined to live its life in peace and solitude makes the arduous journey to Kiev, Ukraine. This is a story of triumph over adversity. It’s a real tear-jerker.
He begins by introducing part of the conversation between Presidents Trump and Zelensky.
 “The Phone Call
According to the transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky released by the White House, Trump asks Zelensky for a favor, “because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. . . . I guess you have one of your wealthy people. . . . The server, they say Ukraine has it. . . . They say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.”
Here, Trump is referring to the baseless conspiracy theory that Russia was framed by Ukraine for the 2016 hack and subsequent release of a damaging tranche of Democratic National Committee emails, which involves a supposed “secret” DNC server being spirited away to and hidden in Ukraine. He seems to be asking Zelensky to investigate the conspiracy theory, presumably in hopes that it would remove the taint of Russian interference from his 2016 victory.”- The Two Theories of Trump’s Actions in the Ukraine Affair By BEN SHAPIRO October 25, 2019 11:01 AM-  National Review
What the wondrous barrel of articles and colorful tales ignore is this is the 21st century and your computer doesn’t need to plug directly into a server. Many people across the world use US hosting services (servers) and vice versa.
Let’s add facts into this and dispense with hyperbole.
Alexandra Chalupa told Politico part of her Oppo-research team was Ukrainian “private Intel.” She hired Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance, RUH8, and Cyberhunta (which included Shaltay Boltay at the time). These groups work for the Ukrainian Information Ministry, SBU (Ukraine’s version of the CIA), the US State Department under Obama, and are Ukraine’s front line Cyber hacking, spy, and Information Operations unit against Russia, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump.
Would you have foreign hackers running rampant on your servers based in the United States which fall under the direct legal purview of election law, Constitutional law, and Federal law?
Of course not. If you were in a gray area where your candidate for US President could be taken to the carpet and impeached for using foreign spy services to build the campaign, the best move would be having questionable work or workers that can be questioned on safe ground to begin with.
If you were working for another country’s spy services, would you want a direct fingerprint inside the election of a US president? Again the answer is no. The ramifications to your own country could be enormous once a better than the barrel investigative journalist gets a whiff of it.
If you do your work through a safe server in your own country, you remain anonymous, have a better chance of success, and might get a medal for it.
The above limits the number of servers in the world that could be used to just 4 or 5. Remember, security is everything. These groups are part of the Ukrainian security infrastructure and realistically would need to be able to scale up to nation-state level actions.
1.       Shaltay Boltay’s server where they stored their archive.
2.       The servers RUH8, Cyber Alliance, and Cyberhunta use.
3.       The Ministry of Information servers because all the hackers including Shaltay Boltay (credited with the DNC hack) worked for them
4.       According to the Kiev Post-Ukrainian special services looking into disappearance of servers from presidential office’s situational room because of former Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko gutted the server room claiming the servers belonged to someone else and had to be returned. He paid for this out of his own pocket instead of Ukrainian state funds. This is almost blasphemy for a graft guy like Poroshenko. The former Ukrainian president is adamant that even though they were the most protected servers in Ukraine, no Ukraine state business was conducted on them.
The reason for this shortlist instead of a particular DNC server is their servers will catalog all their crimes. Not just the DNC hack adventure. It will also catalog all their contacts. This part is important to pursue criminal and civil investigations for crimes and damages they did to news and analytical platforms, public people, journalists, and citizens of the US, Russia, EU, as well as their own country, Ukraine.
In case you haven’t realized it yet, the sites that were hacked in association to #Propornot and lost income, jobs, or reputation, are entitled to restitution. Crimes have been committed against the American, Russian, and EU people, Democratic party members, the Trump administration, Bernie Sanders campaign 2016.
Will the FBI, ODNI, and private Intel companies be held accountable for allowing and protecting foreign spy agencies to operate freely inside US infrastructure?
The politicization of the ODNI, FBI, and CIA needs to cease. This can only be done by phasing out private money from the Intel and law enforcement game. The FBI has no business in the Intel game because the change of mandate is what corrupted a world-renown criminal investigation agency in the first place.
Next up in the series: Outing the DNC hackers
Donald Trump’s Ukraine Server- How the FBI and ODNI hacked and influenced the American psyche
Server, server, who has the Trump-Ukraine server? The answers won’t leave room for doubt on this question.
This is part one of a 3 part series showing the FBI and US Intel agency heads are complicit in the DNC hack after the fact and 2016 election interference. Early on, the FBI and Mueller found the real hackers and worked to hide them from justice and exposure in media. Without the FBI and US Intel community help, the Russia saga would have never happened and unbelievable amounts of corruption would have been exposed early on.
Part 2 will expose the identities of the DNC hackers and where they fit in the Information Operation (IO) to indict and impeach US President Donald Trump and destroy 2016 Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders as agents of Russia or under Russian influence. The US and UK Intel superstars that helped them and some of the projects they worked on including destroying US media platforms not supporting the Clinton campaign in 2016 will be exposed.
Part 3 will conclude analyzing media complicity with corporate contractors, US Intel, and law enforcement.
The only thing that matters are facts and provable evidence. 
When the NYT, 60 Minutes NY, and other outlets contacted me as the original source for what Donald Trump knows about Ukraine’s involvement in 2016 election interference and the DNC hacks, apparently they were correct. It was the only thing they got right about the events even with Pulitzer Prizes and Emmy Awards.  I’ll show why in Part 3 of the series.
Let’s start by solving the DNC hacks in a few paragraphs. If this isn’t the most conclusive evidence you’ve seen for the purpose of getting to the real hackers, don’t read any further afterward.
Shaltay Boltay (Shaltai Boltai) is the group, Robert Mueller indicted for the DNC hacks. Shaltay Boltay leaders who were in the FSB are the people Comey, Clapper, and Mueller they investigated, indicted, and proclaim guilty of the DNC hack and 2016 election influence.
The story of why Mueller and the FBI, ODNI, and NSA couldn’t prove it shows how deep corruption and criminal abetting are rooted in US government agencies and political parties today. The indicted group has a relationship with Dimitry Alperovitch and Crowdstrike, the Atlantic Council, and secondary relationships to Hillary Clinton through the DNC and the RNC through people like Senator John McCain.
Until Crowdstrike’s report late in 2016, the tools Fancy Bear used were proprietary identifiers. Even into 2017, the use of these tools was limited to Fancy Bear and Cozy Bear. These same distinct tools were used to hack the group the ODNI, FBI, and Robert Mueller identified as the DNC hacking groups, Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear.
In a security white paper entitled En Route with Sednit Part 1: Approaching the Target Version 1.0 October 2016 by ESET LLC, Shaltai Boltai was hacked by Fancy Bear in late October 2016. ESET made this attribution based on a set of specialized hacking software specific to the group Fancy Bear.
According to RFE/RLRUH8 (Ukraine Cyber Alliance) credits “mostly CyberHunta” with the Surkov e-mail theft and says it was not the result of a spear-phishing scam but rather what he describes cryptically as “special software.” He claims the malware allowed CyberHunta not only to retrieve Surkov’s e-mail but to “take the entire [Russian] presidential administration system under their control, and they gathered information right from the computers.”
This is verified by Ukraine’s SBU. “And the information that is available in these letters, and which were extracted by” Cyberhunt “, are extremely similar. That is, the methods of execution of all these things – on those documents that officially appear in the materials of criminal proceedings, “- said the head of the SBU.
Lastly,
From Forbes “For example, in October of 2016 “Fancy Bear” was accused of hacking (Shaltai Boltai) Humpty Dumpty.- Paul Roderick Gregory a contributor at CyberHunta sister publication euromaidanpress.com
What’s unique about this is Shaltay Boltay leader Anikeev “Lewis” is the actual hacker for what is known as the Surkov leaks. The hacked material was released in two parts. The first, Lewis released himself on the CyberHunta website. This hacked material was then taken directly to the Atlantic Council.
Other victims of Shaltay Boltay include the head of News Media, Aram Gabrelyanov , presenter Dmitry Kiselev , retired o􀄶cer Igor Strelkov- Girkin , presidential aide Vladislav Surkov , Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
While they are not quite on the Russian FSB to-do list, they fall nicely into Ukraine’s.
         The first information dump in the Surkov hack (administrative assistant might have been hacked) Shaltay Boltay posted the information on Ukraine’s Cyberhunta website(you need a password to post on a hacker website).
         After the first information dump was released by Shaltay Boltay leader Anikeev through the CyberHunta web platform, they were authenticated by the Atlantic Council on the 25th of October, 2016.
         Anikeev was tricked into leaving Ukraine in late October by the FSB. He went to Moscow where he was arrested and charged with treason.
         Shaltay Boltay was hacked by Fancy Bear (identified by specific tools Dimitry Alperovitch said were as strong as DNA evidence) and the hacked information (2nd Surkov dump) was released by Ukraine’s CyberHunta.
Shaltay Boltay was part of CyberHunta which was why they could post material on the Ukrainian website. Ukraine’s CyberHunta and Cyber Alliance work for the Ukrainian Information Ministry as Ukrainian cyber Intel and the DNC as opposition researchers in 2016 through Roman Burko and Christina Dobrovolska.
Cyber Alliance hackers are Ukrainian nationalists that did not work directly with Shaltay Boltay. They were hired by Alexandra Chalupa. Shaltay Boltay (Mueller’s DNC hackers) was hacked by Fancy Bear in Ukraine even though according to Mueller they were Fancy Bear…from Ukraine.
From the Ukrainian hackers own webportal InformNapalm– InformNapalm volunteer intelligence community was the original publisher of the analysis and the actual dumps of Surkov’s correspondence provided by Ukrainian Cyber ​​Alliance (UCA) in October 2016 (second Surkov dump)… A few days ago, a number of Russian news agencies published a story about the arrest of FSB officers responsible for information security, the head of department at Kaspersky Lab (Department of cybercrime investigations), and one Vladimir Anikeev who testified against another FSB employee.
Anikeev is believed to be “Lewis”, the spokesperson for Anonymous International. FSB recently decided to confuse the matters by using the discovery on Anikeev’s computer of #SurkovLeaks files, which had been obtained and published by #UCA, and had already been in the public domain.
 As the speaker for #UCA, I categorically deny any connections between Ukrainian Cyber Alliance and Anonymous International. I will now try to unravel this KGB tangle.
According to RUH8 “Shaltai Boltai people post “samples” of letters of influential, but nonpublic
people, virtually without comment. And they also offer information for sale. But did any of the
allegedly sold correspondences surface anywhere? Why not? Because a complete dump would inflict a
tremendous damage on Moscow, whereas the real goal is to pull some strings and rein in a competitor for power.” .-RUH8
As you’ll see in a second, we found our DNC hackers. The same hacker (RUH8) that gave Ukraine’s CyberHunta credit for the Surkov hack and the first part of the document dump takes credit for the second document dump his group hacked from CyberHunta/Shaltay Boltay’s Anikeev after his arrest.
Notice as much as he hates Anikeev, the Ukrainian nationalist RUH8 denies a connection to the FSB regarding Shaltay Boltay’s work.
“Sometimes they get hacking help from their Russian friends, he says. “There are people there who are so angry at their own government that they are risking spy charges and passing information to us,” RUH8 explains.”- Inside The Ukrainian ‘Hacktivist’ Network Cyberbattling The Kremlin-RFERL
RUH8, the proud Russian hating Ukrainian nationalist is clear. Shaltay Boltay, its members Mueller indicted, WERE NOT working for the Russian government when this combined group hacked the 2016 US election. They were working for Ukraine.
Initial reports out of Russian media tied Mikhailov to a group of hackers in Ukraine and Thailand called Shaltay Boltay, which means Humpty Dumpty. The group is reportedly affiliated with Anonymous, who released damaging documents on high-level Russians in 2014 and the Kremlin alleges that the arrests are related to this act, as Markov told The Daily Beast that Mikhailov: “definitely controlled Shaltay Boltay,” which “cooperated with the Ukrainian SBU [security service], which is the same as working for the CIA; he worked with them, which is obviously treason.”-Paste Magazine
What if… Hillary Clinton’s go-to guy accessing the servers to see who was “leaking DNC and Team Hillary communications” was from the cyber experts Alexandra Chalupa hired for opposition research from Ukraine?
Think about this for a second because it’s a sensible scenario. Chalupa checks in with her go-to gal Christina Dobrovolska who doubles as Ukraine’s Cyber spy manager.
Christina checks to see who’s available in Ukraine and it’s the guy whose work the entire Russian election influence narrative was based on. He’s ok because he works with Ukraine’s CyberHunta. Who cares that he hacked Huma Abedin’s Yahoo account is a wanted criminal or works for a foreign Intel service.
“At the same time her aides were creating “loyalty scores”, Clinton, “instructed a trusted aide to access the campaign’s server and download the messages sent and received by top staffers. She believed her campaign had failed her—not the other way around—and she wanted ‘to see who was talking to who, who was leaking to who.”-Jonathan Allen and Amy Parnes. Shattered: Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign
“In particular, he says, spear-phishing — using messages that mimic those of legitimate companies along with a request and link to change personal security information — “is quite efficient.”
RUH8 credits “mostly CyberHunta” with the Surkov e-mail theft and says it was not the result of a spear-phishing scam but rather what he describes cryptically as “special software.”- RUH8 Ukraine Cyber Alliance- RFE/RL
The lights go on and the bell sounds. The DNC Russian hacker narrative begins. Que Alexandra Chalupa.
“In an interview this month, Chalupa told Politico she had developed a network of sources in Kiev and Washington, including investigative journalists, government officials and private intelligence operatives. “While her consulting work at the DNC this past election cycle centered on mobilizing ethnic communities — including Ukrainian-Americans — she said that, when Trump’s unlikely presidential campaign began surging in late 2015, she began focusing more on the research, and expanded it to include Trump’s ties to Russia, as well.”-Politico 2017 interview with Alexandra Chalupa
It turns out that Ukrainian cyber Intel RUH8’s special Russian friend in Cyberhunta is the same guy Crowdstrike, Comey, Clapper, and Mueller investigated for the DNC hack and the Yahoo hack.
There’s only one problem with the above. The Russian group Shaltay Boltay has never been caught with the Fancy Bear tools. RUH8 and Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance and Cyberhunta had them and used them and used them on Shaltay Boltay. Because the hackers outed themselves by hacking each other with Fancy Bear tools, we have the entire group and subgroups Intel operatives as Chalupa called them in Ukraine.
“So the help of the USA… I don’t know, why would we need it? We have all the talent and special means
for this. And I don’t think that the USA or any NATO country would make such sharp movements in
international politics.” We have no Need of CIA Help Ukrainian Hackers of #Surkov Leaks-RUH8 Ukraine Cyber Alliance, Cyberhunta, Shaltay Boltay, Fancy Bear, Cozy Bear
Reread RUH8’s statements. This is a guy that is dying to do a book and movie deal to finally get the acclaim he thinks he deserves. Let’s give him one- Capturing the DNC Hackers.
After everything was said and done by Comey, Clapper, and Mueller about Russian hackers and influence, Shaltay Boltay’s archives (aka Fancy Bear servers) had to be retrieved from UKRAINE.
“Anonymous International founder, who is now in jail, reported that he had stored his databases with stolen information in a Kiev apartment. Thanks to Anikeev’s testimony, the investigators found out that the information carriers (servers) with the hacked archives are stored in Kiev.”

Why did Ukrainian Intel operatives do all this?

Dimitry Alperovitch of Crowdstrike has an ongoing “Twitter buddy” relationship with Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance, RUH8, and Cyberhunta, which includes Shaltay Boltay dating back to at least 2016.
“Hey. I am the press secretary, a simple Ukrainian hacker, more precisely: we are hackers, but imagine a masked man who speaks to you. I do not do OSINT, I do not tell schoolchildren how to hack websites, I do not care about who and what agreed, I’m not an army or a hundred, I do not obey orders and do not follow a ceasefire, build democracy and fight for justice, I am a hacker, and my goal is to break!
 To break, spoil, rob, entangle, blackmail, frighten, divulge, mock and mock the defenselessness of the victims. Because I can. Hate is my name. I will harm the Russian Federation. And I do not care who you are – a liberal or a guardian, Russians must suffer. Traitors and spongers of Russian invaders must suffer. Pensioners and functionaries, Buryats and October, must suffer. If I find a way how to harm you, even for a penny, I immediately use it. Do you live in Russia? Bad luck. I will not tolerate, will not be merciful, I do not forget and do not forgive.- RUH8
C:\Users\GH\Desktop\spy for hire\CYBER TERROR PART 6 REAL TERRORISM\photos used\threat\RUH8 PROTECTING PEOPLE PRAVY SEKTOR CUTS-twitter.com-2019.04.28-01-33-28.png
Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance (RUH8) and Cyberhunta (including Shaltay Boltay) work under the flag of Dimitro Yarosh’s Pravy Sektor Ukrainian nationalism. The groups and their web platforms were started by former Pravy Sektor spokesman Sviatoslav Yurash. Yurash was also the spokesman for the 2014 EuroMaidan coup, the Ukrainian military, and is the liaison between the ultra-nationalists and the Ukrainian Diaspora through his position as Deputy Director of the Ukrainian World Congress affiliate in Kiev.
All of this started as an Influence Operation in Ukraine that resulted in the 2014 coup and subsequent move to hard Ukrainian nationalism. It bled into the United States as the 2016 election season heated up.
Suffice to say, means, motive, method, and opportunity have been established by the hackers themselves. Sources friendly to their efforts and neutral mainstream sources including RFERL verify it.
If you’re not convinced now, read no further.
         They (as a foreign Intel service) interfered in the 2016 US election.
         They, along with members of the US Intel community tried to destabilize the government in Russia and the USA.
         They shaped and promoted a false narrative that shipwrecked US and Russia relations.
         Their work helped Crowdstrike shape the Fancy Bear-Cozy Bear narrative.
         They shape the US Intel view of what’s going on in Ukraine allowing for crimes against humanity in Donbass (LNR &DNR) to go unaddressed.
         Later in the series, I’ll show these same groups (Ukraine Cyber Alliance, RUH8, Cyberhunta-Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear) were used to manufacture evidence that will be used in the #MH17 trial at the Hague in conjunction with Bellingcat.
         US Intel for hire superstars used the Fancy Bear groups in conjunction with the #Propornot project illegally to identify and take down news and commentary platforms in the US and EU that published stories against the narratives, they were developing and promoting.
         They illegally targeted people expressing social and political opinions. All of this was with the blessing of period ODNI and FBI leadership.

The Disproven Conspiracy Theories about the DNC Hack and 2016 Russian Election Interference

The disproven conspiracy theories about Trump-Russia and Russian election interference is the ones that were proven baseless in court, not the court of opinion. The evidence was fabricated or just not there, to begin with. The FBI’s criminality hiding the real criminals is examined below.
But, these fake stories are still promulgated in an ongoing effort to sabotage the 2020 election cycle and tear the US social fabric apart. Examples of this are- Why Trump Still Believes (wrongly) that Ukraine Hacked the D.N.C.The Conspiracy Theory So Far Out There Even Trump’s Biggest Defenders Are Walking Away From It and @ScottShaneNYT How a Fringe Theory About Ukraine Took Root in the White House.

This article is going to open up the potentially wide-ranging crimes at the FBI aiding and abetting criminals for purely political reasons.

 There are only two possible reactions you can have to this. There are some people that will react emotionally or politically and the consequences be damned. As long as it happens to someone they are sure they hate, why care?
When precedents are set, they work both ways. When political leaders like Trump or Sanders are tried in the court of opinion and declared loyal to a foreign government because the other party doesn’t like them. The method is set for every other person that graces the social or political stage.
Look further into the distance and realize this flows downhill. If it’s fine for political leaders, don’t be surprised when it’s your turn at bat because someone doesn’t like you. This kind of lawlessness spreads quickly as we’ve seen since 2016.
Or maybe it’s time to objectively look at the facts and see where the evidence leads in an unbiased way. That’s it. That’s all.
All of the common knowledge stories rely on readers to assume ODNI head James Clapper’s 2017 report was conclusive and the Mueller investigations were successful. Neither of them was, nor could they ever be.
James Clapper was responsible for the evidence Intel agencies presented in the January 2017 report trying to hamstring the newly elected Trump administration for political reasons.
If ODNI chief Clapper believed the 17 Intel Agency strong report, why couldn’t he stand by the same fact-base in 2018? Clapper no longer cited his iron-clad evidence he presented as proof of Russian interference or the DNC hacks.
In 2018, former ODNI head Clapper’s solid proof of Russian interference in the 2016 election became 78,000 people voted against Hillary Clinton and she lost Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. Notice Jimmy Clapper wasn’t quoting his solid gold January 2017 report anymore.
Who were these 78,000 Clinton haters that cost the DNC the election in 2016?
Back when there was a real Clinton administration, First Lady Hillary Rodman Clinton demanded the US get involved in the Bosnian war. Hillary Clinton supported KLA terrorists and extremists through a bombing campaign. US bombers drove the families of these voters into the arms of murderers so extreme, they were cutting organs out of living people to sell on the black market. Clinton had them taken off the official terrorist lists to the frustration of negotiators trying to make peace during the war.
The Serbian Diaspora voters in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania usually votes for the Democratic ticket, that is, unless your name is Hillary Clinton. This was a bloc vote against Hillary Clinton who they hold responsible for the murder of their families at the hand of terrorists. It’s why Clinton ignored those states campaigning. Clinton mistakenly thought having all the major Diaspora votes in swing-states would be enough.
The problem with the evidence of the Russian government interference in 2016 is it had to be manufactured and repeated by a compliant media to exist.
What will be shown through mainstream sources is the Russian FSB and GRU attacks on the American psyche was produced by domestic and foreign criminals that were hostile to the Russian government for nearly a decade before the DNC hacks. The hackers who are IO specialists were targeting Russian politics, not the US.
Robert Mueller and James Comey are accessories after the fact. They tried feverishly and unsuccessfully to incriminate the wrong people because the facts expose large scale political corruption well beyond what is currently known and it all revolves around Ukraine.
According to PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America) in a study titled Assessing the Russian Internet Research Agency’s impact on the political attitudes and behaviors of American Twitter users in late 2017 there was no Russian impact on the election and they used 6 research standards to measure it.
If you don’t trust official studies done under the Trump administration tenure, Jon Solomon had this to write after uncovering 2016-17 FBI memos: The piecemeal release of FBI files in the Russia collusion investigation has masked an essential fact: James Comey’s G-men had substantially debunked the theory that Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with Moscow by the time the 45th president was settling into the Oval Office, according to declassified memos, court filings and interviews.
And that means a nascent presidency and an entire nation were put through two more years of lacerating debate over an issue that was mostly resolved in January 2017 inside the bureau’s own evidence files. The proof is now sitting in plain view.- FBI’s Russia collusion case fell apart in first month of Trump presidency, memos show
This is why James Clapper changed his tune so radically. When you look at the above, Hillary was taken out behind the woodshed in 2016 for good reasons. Ask yourself what does it have to do with Russians, Russia, or Vladimir Putin or Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders? The only scenario all the evidence supports is Hillary Clinton stepped on a proverbial rake and made herself unelectable in 2016.

FBI, CIA, and ODNI criminal conspiracy against the United States

Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution– Information available as of 29 December 2016 was used in the preparation of this product.
Scope
This report includes an analytic assessment drafted and coordinated among The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and The National Security Agency (NSA), which draws on intelligence information collected and disseminated by those three agencies. It covers the motivation and scope of Moscow’s intentions regarding US elections and Moscow’s use of cyber tools and media campaigns to influence US public opinion. The assessment focuses on activities aimed at the 2016 US presidential election and draws on our understanding of previous Russian influence operations. When we use the term “we” it refers to an assessment by all three agencies.
I refuse to give James Clapper, James Comey, John Brennan, or Robert Mueller the benefit of the doubt and call them ignorant little men.  They acted with full knowledge of what they were doing. Along with all of the agencies’ department heads, these men used their offices trying to try to overthrow the election of the President of the United States and change the fabric of US society by creating irreparable political and social division.
American officials, sworn to defend the USA used their power to fabricate a political narrative they called Intelligence to create their own foreign policy (Russia/Ukraine)and domestic policy(including media, political norms and policy) for the United States.
As late as 2018, #JamesComey was clear when he dismissed a House intelligence committee report that found no collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign as a “political document”. When the ODNI report was written, he knew there was no evidence of Donald Trump-Russia collusion. They all knew.
ODNI Clapper, FBI Comey, John Brennan and Special Counsel Mueller knew in 2017 that the US Intel community conceded there was no coordinated effort by Russia to influence the 2016 election months before.
They successfully divided the United States socially and politically in ways Orwell would be proud of.

Why did US political activism by sworn officials cross a bridge too far?

It all started falling into place after 9-11. Congress decided the FBI needed to get into the Intelligence business. At the time, the FBI fought the changes saying it would hurt their criminal investigation mandate. Because the CIA legally can’t operate domestically, the FBI was rebooted to do the job.
The 2000s version of the FBI was right. The FBI went from being the world’s premier criminal investigation agency to one of the worst imitations of a private sector  CIA domestically and around the world.
The same man the FBI called a nuisance and danger to national security after the twin towers collapsed in New York networked intelligently enough to become the trainer of choice for the FBI, Homeland Security, CIA, NATO, et al.
This new mandate from Congress created over 5000 new Intel positions right away inside the FBI that were filled with outside contractors.
Today’s Intel agency leaders including Homeland Security and FBI department heads were his students from the early 2000s onward. The rise and risk of Intelligence for hire is detailed in U.S. Intelligence Crisis Poses a Threat to the World (Part 1)
This particular agency trainer almost singlehandedly started the US side of the social-political Russian collusion storyline by himself labeling anyone outside his narrative Kremlin trolls and pro-Russian influencers.  He made looking for pro-Russian collaborators fashionable in a post-2016 world in a way that would make Joe McCarthy tingly.
He personally is why media came under so much scrutiny and groups like Propornot were formed to destroy media that didn’t agree to the McCarthy-like narrative, alternative media sources that spoke against the Clinton campaign and post-2014 Ukraine. Watch as it starts again as the 2020 election cycle heats up.
Along with the other US Intel actors, he aided and abetted the murder of journalists in Ukraine by providing the tools, training, means, and method to set it up. It’s quite an embarrassment for Brennan, Comey, Clapper, Mueller, and the agencies, et al.
Imagine, one of the rock-stars of modern Intel being found in that position after your agencies were trained to look at information like him for over a decade. It’s no wonder they hand-fed the current Russia policy narrative he developed to MSM.
In part2, I’ll detail who he is, many of the crimes, along with the real identities of the DNC hackers.
Fusion GPS and Patterning the Trump-Sanders Accusations and Russia Investigation
If the ODNI and FBI engaged in consistent patterns of activity for political reasons that tear the societal fabric of the USA to support corruption that destroy the lives of US citizens, change foreign policy, and erode citizen’s rights, should it be investigated?
It started with Bernie Sanders during the 2016 primaries. This bled into the 2020 primaries.
Sander’s accusations started with “Adam Parkhomenko, a former aide to Hillary Clinton who has repeatedly suggested that Senator Bernie Sanders owes his popularity to Russian support, backed the attorney’s abortive bid for president.”- NYMag
Sander’s accusations of Russia collusion ended with –“A 37-page indictment resulting from special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation shows that Russian nationals and businesses also worked to boost the campaigns of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Green party nominee Jill Stein in an effort to damage Democrat Hillary Clinton”-USA Today
Robert Mueller’s investigation into Bernie Sanders started with a tweeted accusation. Most of the Russian nationals not named were publishers and journalists that support Bernie Sanders and were listed by the FBI trainer who started accusing American web portals of being influencers for the Russian government.

Fusion GPS and the Steele Dossier

Glenn Simpson and Peter Fritsch, the co-founders of the private investigative firm Fusion GPS never tried to vet any of the information Christopher Steele gave them in the infamous and tantalizing Steele Dossier.
The closest anyone has come to a real source is an unknown Russian émigré in the US provided the narrative for Christopher Steele (foreign Intel agent) about events he/she had no first-hand knowledge of.
“Yet, Simpson allegedly acknowledged that most of the information Fusion GPS and British intelligence operative Christopher Steele developed did not come from sources inside Moscow. “Much of the collection about the Trump campaign ties to Russia comes from a former Russian intelligence officer (? not entirely clear) who lives in the U.S.,” Ohr scribbled in his notes.”- The Hill
Is it possible for investigative journalists like Simpson and Fritsch not be even remotely curious about the legitimacy of such scandalous information? This Intel is about an elected US President and they claim they were acting patriotically.
Fusion GPS Founders On Russian Efforts To Sow Discord: ‘They Have Succeeded’. This is quite a statement considering when asked, they admitted they knew absolutely nothing about Steele’s politically motivated fiction.
It’s easy to see why such an appalling politically driven fantasy fell apart after it was given a real examination. But, that’s not the point.
Simpson and Fritsch turned around and gave the Steele Dossier to Republican Senator John McCain (the anti-Trump), knowing full well if he acted in character the Dossier would be made public.  Why McCain’s office? The answer is included below.
“The Washington Times first disclosed the document on April 25, 2017. Republicans later told the Justice Department the filing should have set off alarm bells inside the FBI about Mr. Steele’s credibility, given his admission he had accepted gossip.”-The Washington Times
“The top judge on the federal court overseeing the U.S. government’s surveillance activities accused the FBI on Tuesday of providing false and misleading information about Carter Page in applications to wiretap the former Trump campaign adviser.”– The National Interest
“Before evaluating the media component of this scandal, the FBI’s gross abuse of its power – its serial deceit – is so grave and manifest that it requires little effort to demonstrate it. In sum, the IG Report documents multiple instances in which the FBI – in order to convince a FISA court to allow it spy on former Trump campaign operative Carter Page during the 2016 election – manipulated documents, concealed crucial exonerating evidence, and touted what it knew were unreliable if not outright false claims.
If you don’t consider FBI lying, concealment of evidence, and manipulation of documents in order to spy on a U.S. citizen in the middle of a presidential campaign to be a major scandal, what is?”– The Intercept

ODNI, FBI Hacked and Influenced the American Psyche

Throughout the entire hack and election influence saga US Intel officials acted like spokesmodels for Ukrainian –American Diaspora leader Alexandra Chalupa. They constantly acted for the benefit of private citizen groups and companies who wanted to change US foreign policy and the fabric of society in the USA.
The following is from a man that knows the facts. How can you get such a senior position otherwise? Here’s his big media sound bite;
“FEINSTEIN: And what would those goals have been?
PRIESTAP: I think the primary goal, in my mind, was to sow discord, and to try to delegitimize our free and fair election process. I also think another of their goals, which the entire United States intelligence community stands behind, was to denigrate Secretary Clinton and to try to help then — current President Trump.”- Vox
“Russia, for years, has conducted influence operations targeting our elections,” an FBI agent told Congress on Wednesday. But what made 2016 different was the degree of interference, facilitated by the Internet, said Bill Priestap, the assistant director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division.”.-(CNSNews.com)
And here are Bill Priestap’s conclusions after the media turn away and he’s forced to put on his big boy pants and own up to the evidence the FBI has after years of investigation.
“Further, all three witnesses in that hearing—Ms.Manfra, Dr. Files, and FBI Assistant Director for Counterintelligence Bill Priestap—agreed that they had no evidence that votes themselves were changed in any way in the 2016 election.”- REPORT OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON INTELLIGENCE UNITED STATES SENATE ON RUSSIAN ACTIVE MEASURES CAMPAIGNS AND INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 U.S. ELECTION VOLUME 1: RUSSIAN EFFORTS AGAINST ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE WITH ADDITIONAL VIEWS
Therein lays the crux of the problem. The FBI wanted the election interference story to resonate publically but under oath, there was never any evidence.
According to the IG Report, FBI leaders, lawyers, and investigators were pulling out all stops to derail Donald Trump before and after the 2016 election. How did this organized, continuous, multi-faceted, and multi-event war play on the American psyche? You tell me.
FBI Tried to Influence the Trump Campaign“While the results of any physical searches related to Page are unknown, what is known is that federal spying on the Trump campaign through Page went further. Prior to the FISA surveillance orders, the FBI tasked informant Stefan Halper with targeting Page. (Another agency may have as well.) The IG report revealed that in targeting Page, Halper sought specific details from Page related to the Trump campaign, and fed Page unsolicited (and potentially illegal) advice concerning campaign strategy.”-The Federalist
The only thing to consider is the FBI may have conducted the biggest set of serial crimes of this decade by a law enforcement agency.
This effectively divided every American on a social and political basis. It wasn’t a single event but a continuing policy surrounding the election, foreign policy, and the lengths federal investigators could go to hamstring the executive branch for political reasons.
Before the December 2016 ODNI-FBI GRIZZLY STEPPE – Russian Malicious Cyber Activity JAR, there was no proof of Russian intervention except what came out of the Clinton camp. James Comey denied it. After the ODNI JAR, there was no evidence of Russian intervention in the 2016 election.
The report itself and the actions surrounding it were nothing short of a successful politically charged foreign policy intervention by the FBI and ODNI. How can I say this?
Mueller indicted a Russian company called Concord Management & Consulting LLC for being the vehicle the Russian government used to interfere in the 2016 election. All the information Robert Mueller, James Comey, and James Clapper had to go on came from the indicted DNC hacking group themselves.
After establishing this, we’ll look at the ongoing relationship between the investigators and the criminal hacking groups to reshape American politics, cover-up enormous corruption in the Obama administration, Clinton campaign, and hamstring an elected US President.
The other company called the Internet Research Agency was part of Concord Management.
“In 2014, according to Russian media, Internet Research Ltd. (Russian: «Интернет исследования») was founded in March 2014, joined IRA’s activity. The newspaper Novaya Gazeta reported that this company is a successor of Internet Research Agency Ltd. Internet Research Ltd. is considered to be linked to Yevgeny Prigozhin, head of the holding company Concord Management and Consulting. The “Trolls of Olgino” are considered to be his project. As of October 2014, the company belonged to Mikhail Bystrov, who had been the head of the police station at Moscow district of Saint Petersburg.
Russian media point out that according to documents, published by hackers from Anonymous International, Concord Management is directly involved with trolling administration through the agency. Researchers cite e-mail correspondence, in which Concord Management gives instructions to trolls and receives reports on accomplished work. According to journalists, Concord Management organized banquets in the Kremlin and also cooperated with Voentorg and the Russian Ministry of Defense.”-Wikipedia
This information is well documented enough to have an almost accurate Wikipedia listing barring one glaring point Mueller, Comey, and Clapper needed to ignore to build their Trump-Russia collusion, Russian election interference, and Russian hacking narrative.
Scott Humor at the Saker.is researched the Internet Research Agency extensively. In an article entitled “A Brief History of the Kremlin Trolls,” he shows clearly the Internet Research Agency only existed on paper. Even then, it ceased to exist in 2015. It was liquidated and the company emerged as a construction retail company called TEKA.
This brings us to the foreign policy objective the US Intel community and US Intel agencies hacked the American psyche very successfully to reach:
“On 29 December 2016, the White House accused and sanctioned the FSB and several other Russian companies for what the US intelligence agencies said was their role in helping the Russian military intelligence service, the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) disrupt and spread disinformation during the 2016 US presidential election. In addition, the State Department also declared 35 Russian diplomats and officials persona non grata and denied Russian government officials access to two Russian-owned installations in Maryland and New York.”- Wikipedia
Here’s the fun part. Everything we know about 2016 Russian involvement stems from this same small group that ODNI and FBI had to embellish by magnitudes to link them to a Russian government operation and then indict.
While they were the hackers and Information Operators the FBI investigated and Robert Mueller indicted, the hacking groups weren’t working for the Russian government for the Yahoo hack or the DNC hack and 2016election hacks.
Dmitry Dokuchaev used his position to commit crimes against Russia and the USA which helped the FBI to build the one narrative they needed to fabricate official Russian government involvement.
         U.S. v. Dmitry Dokuchaev, et al.
         “Dokuchaev is a former hacker from Yekaterinburg. He was reportedly blackmailed into joining the FSB, Russia’s domestic intelligence agency, after his private exploits became known to the service, but then built a successful career, rising to the rank of major. The Russian investigation appears to link him to a group called Shaltai Boltai, or Humpty Dumpty, which broke into electronic mailboxes, mostly of Russian officials and business people, obtained compromising information about them and then either sold or published it. The group’s work was a combination of blackmail, competitive intelligence and public relations; Dokuchaev’s alleged role was to direct the group toward particular victims and cover up its activities while pretending to investigate it.”- Bloomberg- What the Yahoo Hack Says About Russian Spies-The 2014 hack appears to have been a business scheme run by Russian intelligence officers
The FSB agency mandate is limited by law to work inside Russia, not outside. This alone makes it illegal for the FSB to engage in state-level espionage and hacking operations outside.
The FSB has an incredible amount of legal authority to surveil all information passed on or through Russian servers.
Jeff Carr noted the Russian Law on the FSB (article 15) states that “all individuals and legal entities in Russia, providing postal services, telecommunications of all kinds, including systems, data communication, satellite communications, are obliged at the request of the Federal Security Service to include in the extra hardware equipment and software, as well as create other conditions necessary for the operational and technical measures by the Federal Security Service.”
And yet;
In case you missed it, the FSB through Dmitry Dokuchaev’s Shaltay Boltay was accused of illegally hacking accounts of Russian officials. Why would the FSB hack these officials it legally had almost unlimited jurisdiction to the information without hacking?
For anyone clinging to the Yahoo or DNC hacks with a purely political mindset; this is the same as walking into a bank vault with $1 billion dollars in it. You know you have the legal right to walk away with any or all of it. But, just for giggles, you hire a foreign criminal to rob the place which makes you liable for bank robbery, conspiracy, and treason.
And in the real world case of Yahoo, you get caught because the Canadian hacker you illegally hired for the Yahoo hack broke the Canadian criminal code of silence when he testified against you.
To put it delicately, this would have to be the most inept crime of all time. For this to be true, Dokuchaev must have just fallen off the turnip truck and hit his head. Got whacked with the ole’ ugly stick at the same time he stepped on a rake as he was laughed at by a 12-year-old girl who wound up and kicked him in the…….Seriously? That’s as insulting as it is injurious.
Instead, what we have is a group of Russian criminals (Shaltai Boltai) who are not working for the Russian government and continually try to hack Russian officials for blackmail. According to Stratfor, “In a 2015 interview, the leader of Shaltai Boltai, code-named “Lewis,” said his group was driven purely by money, not ideology… The narrative linking Shaltai Boltai to the FSB officers came just three days after the initial stories suggesting the FSB officers were the sources of leaks to U.S. intelligence.”
But were Dokuchaev and Shaltai Boltai (Shaltay Boltay) feeding US Intelligence information? If so, what kind of information?
The “Background to “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution” the Office of the Director of National Intelligence ODNI quotes Shaltay Boltay because this group is the primary source of information about both events because they created what we know about them.

Dokuchaev, Shaltay Boltay, the FBI, and Robert Mueller

Summary:
The FBI interviewed members of Shaltay Boltay groups and asked for help writing the 2016 election hacking and influence story. Shaltay Boltay could play the heroes and the villains. They were heroes because they created the influence story about a non-existent company that no one could find that Putin ordered to influence the 2016 election in favor of Donald Trump.
They were the villains because they were the DNC hackers. If Shaltay Boltay cooperated to implicate Trump and Putin, US citizenship and jobs were waiting for them.
Dokuchaev and his working group Shaltai Boltai (Shaltay Boltay), otherwise known as Anonymous International or Humpty Dumpty  are the source for everything known about the Russian Internet Agency (IRA), Russian election interference, and provides the Russian FSB-GRU connection through Dokuchaev needed to make the Russia-DNC hack narrative almost work.
Shaltay Boltay are the Yahoo hackers that stole Huma Abedin’ State Department logins. This is important because it also separates them from being Russian government operatives.
More importantly, their own self described claim to fame was creating realities. Shaltay Boltay primary work is in Information Operations. The founder of the elusive Shaltai Boltai hacker group has been uncovered as Vladimir Anikeyev, a native Dagestani and expert in “black PR.”
It’s no secret today Comey’s FBI and the Mueller investigation were working hard to grasp at any straw they could to derail the Trump presidency. Even though they knew there was no collusion, their teams worked overtime to prove it by pushing half-truths in an invented narrative.
What brings the FBI investigators and Comey’s behavior to a collusion, harboring, and abetting threshold is they identified the leaders of the hacking groups early on, the hackers, and ignored them to hide corruption.

Was the ODNI and Comey’s FBI an accessory after the fact to the DNC Hacks and murder? – Harboring Criminals

Comey’s Russian collusion team and the Mueller probes pushed the 2016 investigations away from the criminals they were supposed to be investigating.
         The FBI, Comey, and Mueller knew Shaltay Boltay (Shaltai Boltai) were part of a higher level group. While this group worked for money, not politics, the higher-level group are extreme nationalists.
The big question if their entire history is blackmailing Russians, who are they working for in relation to the US election?
         The FBI knew this group fabricated the only basis used for a Russia election interference investigation. The FBI knew they did this from Ukraine.
The reason the FBI and Mueller knew the Russian government FSB-GRU connection to the hacks was fabricated was the leaders of Shaltay Boltay were extremely clear and public about hurting the Russian government and Russians.
         The FBI, Comey, and Mueller knew from 2014- late 2016, the indicted and ignored involved leaders and US oriented parts of Shaltay Boltay were located in Kiev, Ukraine.
Shaltay Boltay leaders were wanted criminals and worked against the Russian government 2014-2016 when they fled to Kiev. This is evidenced by the so-called Surkov hack. The emails were released through the working group Shaltay Boltay was with 2014-16.
         The FBI and Mueller had this group’s IP addresses which Mueller used in his indictments and the willing cooperation of the server company that hosted them.
“If we consider the situation from the other side, it is unclear why the FBI and related experts are talking only about our company,” said Fomenko. “After all, the U.S. intelligence report says that the hacking was staged from eight IP addresses, six of them belonging to our company (the criminals used our equipment), and two other companies being not connected with us in any way. One of them is located in the Netherlands, I don’t know about the other. But it’s all just about us. What is this? Prejudice?”-RBTH
         The FBI and Mueller refused to investigate or interview the owner of the server (King Servers) the DNC hackers used who wanted to testify. Yet, Shaltay Boltay’s IP addresses were considered key evidence anyway. Apparently, the DNC hackers owed him money.
The FBI knew the groups involved physical location and concealed it to shield them from the investigation by constantly attributing the DNC and subsequent hacks to Russia.
         The FBI and Mueller purposefully stayed away from the main group and targeted sub-groups, outliers, and used false accusations that protected the Executive branch from being dragged into the investigation. At the very least, all of this happened as the direct result of Obama’s Ukraine and Russia policies.
Shaltai Boltai’s Yevgeny Nikulin was interviewed by the FBI. According to Disobedient Media’s Adam Carter “Nikulin has stated in a letter, passed to his lawyer Martin Sadilek and reported by Moscow Times, that, after his arrest on October 5, 2016, he was visited by the FBI several times, the first of which was on 14-15 November, 2016.
From the Bell– In it, he also mentions attacks on the servers of the Democratic Party committee. Kozlovsky writes that he was engaged in them on behalf of the FSB officer, whom he calls “Ilya.” Later, the hacker began to claim that under the pseudonym “Ilya” he was supervised by FSB Major Dmitry Dokuchaev.
         The FBI investigators allegedly offered payment for information implicating Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin.
On 5/11/17 Newsweek ran an article headlined FBI PROBE INTO CLINTON EMAILS PROMPTED OFFER OF CASH, CITIZENSHIP FOR CONFESSION, RUSSIAN HACKER CLAIMS.“[They told me:] you will have to confess to breaking into Clinton’s inbox for [U.S. President Donald Trump] on behalf of [Russian President Vladimir Putin],” Nikulin wrote, according to The Moscow Times.”
         The FBI, Comey, and Mueller knew Shaltay Boltay was part of a foreign Intel structure whose goal since 2014 has been to disrupt US-Russia relations.
         The FBI knew Shaltay Boltay as part of Ukrainian CyberHunta worked for the Hillary Clinton campaign as opposition researchers through the DNC.
Alexandra Chalupa used private/public Ukrainian Cyber Intel groups Ukraine Cyber Alliance and CyberHunta(part of the Ukrainian Ministry of Information) to do opposition research. Roman Burko and Christina Dobrovolska (US State Department contractor, liaison to the US-Ukrainian Diaspora) led the groups under the Information Ministry.
         The FBI knew the main workgroup also worked in conjunction with Crowdstrike, the Atlantic Council, and members of the US Intel community. The groups were used to fabricate anti-Russian narratives for NATO and statements delivered to US Congressional committees voting on support for Ukraine.
The Daily Beast-The deputy head of its now-defunct Center for Information Security, Sergei Mikhailov, was arrested, along with two colleagues and an employee of the cybersecurity firm Kaspersky, Ruslan Stoyanov, for allegedly passing secret information to Western intelligence agencies.
         The FBI knew only Crowdstrike, Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance (RUH8) and Cyberhunta had possession of key component tools of the DNC hack that Crowdstrike’s Dimitry Alperovitch stated were like DNA evidence.
The FBI knew Crowdstrike relied on information they shared with the Ukrainian Intel groups.
         According to Wikileaks, the phishing attack on Podesta originated in Ukraine.
         The FBI and Mueller knew the groups labeled Fancy Bear/Cozy Bear along with American and British Intel community members were involved in setting up the Ukrainian Information Ministry’s murder for hire platform Myrotvorets beginning very in early 2015.
These same groups protected by the FBI worked with US & UK Intel Community superstars to set up and refine Myrotvorets. This was Ukraine’s hit-for-hire listings that named the enemies of post-Maidan Ukraine. It started with the murder of journalist Olez Buzina one month after the webplatform went live. At the time it went live, I predicted the first murder would soon follow. Unfortunately, it did.
         The FBI knows the core members responsible for all this and that can answer for it are the ones they concealed from the investigation still operate in Ukraine.
Under 18 U.S.C. § 1071, anyone who “harbors or conceals” a person to prevent their “discovery and arrest” is guilty of a crime.

TheTrump-Ukraine Servers

Servers, servers, let’s see who has the Trump-Ukraine server. I chose the following article quote from @benshapiro out of the all the rest of the barrel for the colorful language he uses. Imagine a lone DNC server determined to live its life in peace and solitude makes the arduous journey to Kiev, Ukraine. This is a story of triumph over adversity. It’s a real tear-jerker.
He begins by introducing part of the conversation between Presidents Trump and Zelensky.
 “The Phone Call
According to the transcript of the July 25 phone call between Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky released by the White House, Trump asks Zelensky for a favor, “because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. . . . I guess you have one of your wealthy people. . . . The server, they say Ukraine has it. . . . They say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible.”
Here, Trump is referring to the baseless conspiracy theory that Russia was framed by Ukraine for the 2016 hack and subsequent release of a damaging tranche of Democratic National Committee emails, which involves a supposed “secret” DNC server being spirited away to and hidden in Ukraine. He seems to be asking Zelensky to investigate the conspiracy theory, presumably in hopes that it would remove the taint of Russian interference from his 2016 victory.”- The Two Theories of Trump’s Actions in the Ukraine Affair By BEN SHAPIRO October 25, 2019 11:01 AM-  National Review
What the wondrous barrel of articles and colorful tales ignore is this is the 21st century and your computer doesn’t need to plug directly into a server. Many people across the world use US hosting services (servers) and vice versa.
Let’s add facts into this and dispense with hyperbole.
Alexandra Chalupa told Politico part of her Oppo-research team was Ukrainian “private Intel.” She hired Ukraine’s Cyber Alliance, RUH8, and Cyberhunta (which included Shaltay Boltay at the time). These groups work for the Ukrainian Information Ministry, SBU (Ukraine’s version of the CIA), the US State Department under Obama, and are Ukraine’s front line Cyber hacking, spy, and Information Operations unit against Russia, Bernie Sanders, and Donald Trump.
Would you have foreign hackers running rampant on your servers based in the United States which fall under the direct legal purview of election law, Constitutional law, and Federal law?
Of course not. If you were in a gray area where your candidate for US President could be taken to the carpet and impeached for using foreign spy services to build the campaign, the best move would be having questionable work or workers that can be questioned on safe ground to begin with.
If you were working for another country’s spy services, would you want a direct fingerprint inside the election of a US president? Again the answer is no. The ramifications to your own country could be enormous once a better than the barrel investigative journalist gets a whiff of it.
If you do your work through a safe server in your own country, you remain anonymous, have a better chance of success, and might get a medal for it.
The above limits the number of servers in the world that could be used to just 4 or 5. Remember, security is everything. These groups are part of the Ukrainian security infrastructure and realistically would need to be able to scale up to nation-state level actions.
1.       Shaltay Boltay’s server where they stored their archive.
2.       The servers RUH8, Cyber Alliance, and Cyberhunta use.
3.       The Ministry of Information servers because all the hackers including Shaltay Boltay (credited with the DNC hack) worked for them
4.       According to the Kiev Post-Ukrainian special services looking into disappearance of servers from presidential office’s situational room because of former Ukrainian President Petr Poroshenko gutted the server room claiming the servers belonged to someone else and had to be returned. He paid for this out of his own pocket instead of Ukrainian state funds. This is almost blasphemy for a graft guy like Poroshenko. The former Ukrainian president is adamant that even though they were the most protected servers in Ukraine, no Ukraine state business was conducted on them.
The reason for this shortlist instead of a particular DNC server is their servers will catalog all their crimes. Not just the DNC hack adventure. It will also catalog all their contacts. This part is important to pursue criminal and civil investigations for crimes and damages they did to news and analytical platforms, public people, journalists, and citizens of the US, Russia, EU, as well as their own country, Ukraine.
In case you haven’t realized it yet, the sites that were hacked in association to #Propornot and lost income, jobs, or reputation, are entitled to restitution. Crimes have been committed against the American, Russian, and EU people, Democratic party members, the Trump administration, Bernie Sanders campaign 2016.
Will the FBI, ODNI, and private Intel companies be held accountable for allowing and protecting foreign spy agencies to operate freely inside US infrastructure?
The politicization of the ODNI, FBI, and CIA needs to cease. This can only be done by phasing out private money from the Intel and law enforcement game. The FBI has no business in the Intel game because the change of mandate is what corrupted a world-renown criminal investigation agency in the first place.
Next up in the series: Outing the DNC hackers

A Lesson Coronavirus Is About to Teach the World

By Jonathan Cook

Global Research, March 19, 2020

If a disease can teach wisdom beyond our understanding of how precarious and precious life is, the coronavirus has offered two lessons.

The first is that in a globalised world our lives are so intertwined that the idea of viewing ourselves as islands – whether as individuals, communities, nations, or a uniquely privileged species – should be understood as evidence of false consciousness. In truth, we were always bound together, part of a miraculous web of life on our planet and, beyond it, stardust in an unfathomably large and complex universe. 

It is only an arrogance cultivated in us by those narcissists who have risen to power through their own destructive egotism that blinded us to the necessary mix of humility and awe we ought to feel as we watch a drop of rain on a leaf, or a baby struggle to crawl, or the night sky revealed in all its myriad glories away from city lights.

And now, as we start to enter periods of quarantine and self-isolation – as nations, communities and individuals – all that should be so much clearer. It has taken a virus to show us that only together are we at our strongest, most alive and most human.

In being stripped of what we need most by the threat of contagion, we are reminded of how much we have taken community for granted, abused it, hollowed it out. We are afraid because the services we need in times of collective difficulty and trauma have been turned into commodities that require payment, or treated as privileges to which access is now means-tested, rationed or is simply gone. That insecurity is at the root of the current urge to hoard.

When death stalks us it is not bankers we turn to, or corporate executives, or hedge fund managers. Nonetheless, those are the people our societies have best rewarded. They are the people who, if salaries are a measure of value, are the most prized.

But they are not the people we need, as individuals, as societies, as nations. Rather, it will be doctors, nurses, public health workers, care-givers and social workers who will be battling to save lives by risking their own.

During this health crisis we may indeed notice who and what is most important. But will we remember the sacrifice, their value after the virus is no longer headline news? Or will we go back to business as usual – until the next crisis – rewarding the arms manufacturers, the billionaire owners of the media, the fossil fuel company bosses, and the financial-services parasites feeding off other people’s money? 

‘Take it on the chin’ 

The second lesson follows from the first. Despite everything we have been told for four decades or more, western capitalist societies are far from the most efficient ways of organising ourselves. That will be laid bare as the coronavirus crisis deepens.

We are still very much immersed in the ideological universe of Thatcherism and Reaganism, when we were told quite literally: “There is no such thing as society.” How will that political mantra stand the test of the coming weeks and months? How much can we survive as individuals, even in quarantine, rather than as part of communities that care for all of us?Western leaders who champion neoliberalism, as they are required to do nowadays, have two choices to cope with coronavirus – and both will require a great deal of misdirection if we are not to see through their hypocrisy and deceptions.

Our leaders can let us “take it on the chin”, as the British prime minister Boris Johnson has phrased it. In practice, that will mean allowing what is effectively a cull of many of the poor and elderly – one that will relieve governments of the financial burden of underfunded pension schemes and welfare payments.

Such leaders will claim they are powerless to intervene or to ameliorate the crisis. Confronted with the contradictions inherent in their worldview, they will suddenly become fatalists, abandoning their belief in the efficacy and righteousness of the free market. They will say the virus was too contagious to contain, too robust for health services to cope, too lethal to save lives. They will evade all blame for the decades of health cuts and privatisations that made those services inefficient, inadequate, cumbersome and inflexible.

Or, by contrast, politicians will use their spin doctors and allies in the corporate media to obscure the fact that they are quietly and temporarily becoming socialists to deal with the emergency. They will change the welfare rules so that all those in the gig economy they created – employed on zero-hours contracts – do not spread the virus because they cannot afford to self-quarantine or take days’ off sick.

Or most likely our leaders will pursue both options.

Permanent crisis 

If acknowledged at all, the conclusion to be draw from the crisis – that we all matter equally, that we need to look after one another, that we sink or swim together – will be treated as no more than an isolated, fleeting lesson specific to this crisis. Our leaders will refuse to draw more general lessons – ones that might highlight their own culpability – about how sane, humane societies should function all the time. 

In fact, there is nothing unique about the coronavirus crisis. It is simply a heightened version of the less visible crisis we are now permanently mired in. As Britain sinks under floods each winter, as Australia burns each summer, as the southern states of the US are wrecked by hurricanes and its great plains become dustbowls, as the climate emergency becomes ever more tangible, we will learn this truth slowly and painfully. 

Those deeply invested in the current system – and those so brainwashed they cannot see its flaws – will defend it to the bitter end. They will learn nothing from the virus. They will point to authoritarian states and warn that things could be far worse. 

They will point a finger at Iran’s high death toll as confirmation that our profit-driven societies are better, while ignoring the terrible damage we have inflicted on Iran’s health services after years of sabotaging its economy through ferocious sanctions. We left Iran all the more vulnerable to coronavirus  because we wanted to engineer “regime change” – to interfere under the pretence of “humanitarian” concern – as we have sought to do in other countries whose resources we wished to control, from Iraq to Syria and Libya.

Iran will be held responsible for a crisis we willed, that our politicians intended (even if the speed and means came as a surprise), to overthrow its leaders. Iran’s failures will be cited as proof of our superior way of life, as we wail self-righteously about the outrage of a “Russian interference” whose contours we can barely articulate. 

Valuing the common good 

Those who defend our system, even as its internal logic collapses in the face of coronavirus and a climate emergency, will tell us how lucky we are to live in free societies where some – Amazon executives, home delivery services, pharmacies, toilet-paper manufacturers – can still make a quick buck from our panic and fear. As long as someone is exploiting us, as long as someone is growing fat and rich, we will be told the system works – and works better than anything else imaginable. 

But in fact, late-stage capitalist societies like the US and the UK will struggle to claim even the limited successes against coronavirus of authoritarian governments. Is Trump in the US or Johnson in the UK – exemplars of “the market knows best” capitalism – likely to do better than China at containing and dealing with the virus?

This lesson is not about authoritarian versus “free” societies. This is about societies that treasure the common wealth, that value the common good, above private greed and profit, above protecting the privileges of a wealth-elite.

In 2008, after decades of giving the banks what they wanted – free rein to make money by trading in hot air – the western economies all but imploded as an inflated bubble of empty liquidity burst. The banks and financial services were saved only by public bail-outs – tax payers’ money. We were given no choice: the banks, we were told, were “too big to fail”.We bought the banks with our common wealth. But because private wealth is our era’s guiding star, the public were not allowed to own the banks they bought. And once the banks had been bailed out by us – a perverse socialism for the rich – the banks went right back to making private money, enriching a tiny elite until the next crash.

Nowhere to fly to 

The naive may think this was a one-off. But the failings of capitalism are inherent and structural, as the virus is already demonstrating and the climate emergency will drive home with alarming ferocity in the coming years.

The shut-down of borders means the airlines are quickly going bust. They didn’t put money away for a rainy day, of course. They didn’t save, they weren’t prudent. They are in a cut-throat world where they need to compete with rivals, to drive them out of business and make as much money as they can for shareholders.

Now there is nowhere for the airlines to fly to – and they will have no visible means to make money for months on end. Like the banks, they are too big to fail – and like the banks they are demanding public money be spent to tide them over until they can once again rapaciously make profits for their shareholders. There will be many other corporations queuing up behind the airlines. 




260 people are talking about this

Sooner or later the public will be strong-armed once again to bail out these profit-driven corporations whose only efficiency is the central part they play in fuelling global warming and eradicating life on the planet. The airlines will be resuscitated until the inevitable next crisis arrives – one in which they are key players.

A boot stamping on a face

Capitalism is an efficient system for a tiny elite to make money at a terrible cost, and an increasingly untenable one, to wider society – and only until that system shows itself to be no longer efficient. Then wider society has to pick up the tab, and assist the wealth-elite so the cycle can be begun all over again. Like a boot stamping on a human face – forever, as George Orwell warned long ago.

But it is not just that capitalism is economically self-destructive; it is morally vacant too. Again, we should study the exemplars of neoliberal orthodoxy: the UK and the US.

In Britain, the National Health Service – once the envy of the world – is in terminal decline after decades of privatising and outsourcing its services. Now the same Conservative party that began the cannibalising of the NHS is pleading with businesses such as car makers to address a severe shortage of ventilators, which will soon be needed to assist coronavirus patients.

Once, in an emergency, western governments would have been able to direct resources, both public and private, to save lives. Factories could have been repurposed for the common good. Today, the government behaves as if all it can do is incentivise business, pinning hopes on the profit motive and selfishness driving these firms to enter the ventilator market, or to provide beds, in ways beneficial to public health.

The flaws in this approach should be glaring if we examine how a car manufacturer might respond to the request to adapt its factories to make ventilators.

If it is not persuaded that it can make easy money or if it thinks there are quicker or bigger profits to be made by continuing to make cars at a time when the public is frightened to use public transport, patients will die. If it holds back, waiting to see if there will be enough demand for ventilators to justify adapting its factories, patients will die. If it delays in the hope that ventilator shortages will drive up subsidies from a government fearful of the public backlash, patients will die. And if it makes ventilators on the cheap, to boost profits, without ensuring medical personnel oversee quality control, patients will die.

Survival rates will depend not on the common good, on our rallying to help those in need, on planning for the best outcome, but on the vagaries of the market. And not only on the market, but on faulty, human perceptions of what constitute market forces.

Survival of the fittest 

If this were not bad enough, Trump – in all his inflated vanity – is showing how that profit-motive can be extended from the business world he knows so intimately to the cynical political one he has been gradually mastering. According to reports, behind the scenes he has been chasing after a silver bullet. He is speaking to international pharmaceutical companies to find one close to developing a vaccine so the United States can buy exclusive rights to it.

Reports suggest that he wants to offer the vaccine exclusively to the US public, in what would amount to the ultimate vote-winner in a re-election year. This would be the nadir of the dog-eat-dog philosophy – the survival of the fittest, the market decides worldview – we have been encouraged to worship over the past four decades. It is how people behave when they are denied a wider society to which they are responsible and which is responsible for them.




112 people are talking about this

But even should Trump eventually deign to let other countries enjoy the benefits of his privatised vaccine, this will not be about helping mankind, about the greater good. It will be about Trump the businessman-president turning a tidy profit for the US on the back of other’s desperation and suffering, as well as marketing himself a political hero on the global stage.

Or, more likely, it will be yet another chance for the US to demonstrate its “humanitarian” credentials, rewarding “good” countries by giving them access to the vaccine, while denying “bad” countries like Russia the right to protect their citizens.

Obscenely stunted worldviewIt will be a perfect illustration on the global stage – and in bold technicolour – of how the American way of marketing health works. This is what happens when health is treated not as a public good but as a commodity to be bought, as a privilege to incentivise the workforce, as a measure of who is successful and who is unsuccessful.

The US, by far the richest country on the planet, has a dysfunctional health care system not because it cannot afford a good one, but because its political worldview is so obscenely stunted by the worship of wealth that it refuses to acknowledge the communal good, to respect the common wealth of a healthy society.

The US health system is by far the most expensive in the world, but also the most inefficient. The vast bulk of “health spending” does not contribute to healing the sick but enriches a health industry of pharmaceutical corporations and health insurance companies.

Analysts describe a third of all US health spending – $765 billion a year – as “wasted”. But “waste” is a euphemism. In fact, it is money stuffed into the pockets of corporations calling themselves the health industry as they defraud the common wealth of US citizens. And the fraudulence is all the greater because despite this enormous expenditure more than one in 10 US citizens has no meaningful health cover.

As never before, coronavirus will bring into focus the depraved inefficiency of this system – the model of profit-driven health care, of market forces that look out for the short-term interests of business, not the long-term interests of us all.

There are alternatives. Right now, Americans are being offered a choice between a democratic socialist, Bernie Sanders, who champions health care as a right because it is a common good, and a Democratic party boss, Joe Biden, who champions the business lobbies he depends on for funding and his political success. One is being marginalised and vilified as a threat to the American way of life by a handful of corporations that own the US media, while the other is being propelled towards the Democratic nomination by those same corporations.

Coronavirus has an important, urgent lesson to teach us. The question is: are we ready yet to listen?

*

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.

This essay first appeared on the author’s blog site, Jonathan Cook’s blog.

Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Health.milThe original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Jonathan Cook, Global Research, 2020

‘Zionist’ Biden in His Own Words: ‘My Name is Joe Biden, and Everybody Knows I Love Israel’

March 16, 2020

By Ramzy Baroud

“I am a Zionist. You don’t have to be a Jew to be a Zionist,” current Democratic Presidential candidate, Joe Biden, said in April 2007, soon before he was chosen to be Barack Obama’s running mate in the 2008 elections. 

Biden is, of course, correct, because Zionism is a political movement that is rooted in 20th-century nationalism and fascism. Its use of religious dogmas is prompted by political expediency, not spirituality or faith.

Unlike US President, Donald Trump, or Bernie Sanders, Biden’s only serious opponent in the Democratic primaries, Biden’s stand on Israel is rarely examined.

Trump has made his support for Israel the cornerstone of his foreign policy agenda since his inauguration into the White House in January 2017. The American President has basically transformed into Israel’s political genie, granting Tel Aviv all of its wishes in complete defiance of international law. 

Sanders, on the other hand, came to represent the antithesis of Trump’s blind and reckless support for Israel. Himself Jewish, Sanders has promised to restore to the Palestinian people their rights and dignity, and to play a more even-handed role, thus ending decades of US unconditional support and bias in favor of Israel. 

But where does Biden factor into all of this?

Below is a brief examination of Biden’s record on Palestine and Israel in recent years, with the hope that it gives the reader a glimpse of a man that many Democrats feel is the rational alternative to the political imbalances and extremism of the Trump administration.

August 1984: Palestinians and Arabs are to Blame

Biden’s pro-Israel legacy began much earlier than his stint as a vice-President or presidential candidate. 

When Biden was only a Senator from Delaware, he spoke at the 1984 annual conference of ‘Herut Zionists of America’. Herut is the forerunner of Israel’s right-wing Likud party. 

In his speech before the jubilant right-wing pro-Israel Zionist crowd, Biden derided the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) and Arab governments, for supposedly derailing peace in the Middle East. 

Biden spoke of “three myths (that) propel U.S. policy in the Middle East” which, according to the American Senator, are, “the belief that Saudi Arabia can be a broker for peace, the belief that King Hussein (of Jordan) is ready to negotiate peace, and the belief that the Palestine Liberation Organization can deliver a consensus for peace.”

April 2007: ‘I am a Zionist’ 

Time only cemented Biden’s pro-Israel’s convictions, leading to his declaration in April 2007 that he is not a mere supporter of Israel – as has become the standard among US politicians – but is a Zionist himself. 

In an interview with Shalom TV, and despite his insistence that he does not need to be Jewish to be a Zionist, Biden labored to make connections with the ‘Jewish State’ revealing that his son is married to a Jewish woman and that “he had participated in a Passover Seder at their house,” according to the Israeli Ynet News.

March 2013: ‘Qualitative Edge’

This commitment to Israel became better articulated when Biden took on greater political responsibilities as the US vice-president under Obama’s administration.

At a packed AIPAC conference in March 2013, Biden elaborated on his ideological Zionist beliefs and his president’s commitment to ‘the Jewish state of Israel’. He said:

“It was at that table that I learned that the only way to ensure that it could never happen again was the establishment and the existence of a secure, Jewish state of Israel. I remember my father, a Christian, being baffled at the debate taking place at the end of World War II ..” that any country could object to the founding of Israel on the ruins of the Palestinian homeland.

“That’s why we’ve worked so hard to make sure Israel keeps its qualitative edge in the midst of the Great Recession. I’ve served with eight Presidents of the United States of America, and I can assure you, unequivocally, no President has done as much to physically secure the State of Israel as President Barack Obama.”  

December 2014: ‘Moral Obligation’ 

In one of the most fiercely pro-Israel speeches ever given by a top US official, Biden told the annual Saban Forum at the Brookings Institution in Washington on December 6, 2014, that, “If there weren’t an Israel, we would have to invent one”.

In his speech, Biden added a new component to the American understanding of its relationship with Israel, one that goes beyond political expediency or ideological connections; a commitment that is founded on “moral obligation”.

Biden said, “We always talk about Israel from this perspective, as if we’re doing (them) some favor. We are meeting a moral obligation. But it is so much more than a moral obligation. It is overwhelmingly in the self-interest of the United States of America to have a secure and democratic friend, a strategic partner like Israel. It is no favor. It is an obligation, but also a strategic necessity.”

April 2015: ‘I Love Israel’ 

My name is Joe Biden, and everybody knows I love Israel,” Biden began his speech at the 67th Annual Israeli Independence Day Celebration held in Jerusalem in April 2015.

“Sometimes we drive each other crazy,” the US vice-president said in reference to disagreements between Israel and the US over Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to halt construction of illegal Jewish settlements. 

“But we love each other,” he added. “And we protect each other. As many of you heard me say before, were there no Israel, America would have to invent one. We’d have to invent one because … you protect our interests like we protect yours.”

July 2019: US Embassy Stays in Jerusalem

In response to a question by the news website, AXIOS, which was presented to the various Democratic party candidates, on whether a Democratic President would relocate the American embassy back to Tel Aviv, the Biden campaign answered:

“Vice President Biden would not move the American embassy back to Tel Aviv. But he would re-open our consulate in East Jerusalem to engage the Palestinians.”

October 2019: Support for Israel Unconditional 

In an interview with the Wall Street Journal on October 31, 2019, Biden was asked whether he agrees with the position taken by his more progressive opponent, Bernie Sanders, regarding US financial support to Israel and Jewish settlement.

Sanders had said that, “if elected president he would leverage billions of dollars in U.S. military aid to Israel to push Jerusalem to change its policies toward the Palestinians,” The Hill news website reported

Biden’s response was that, “ ..  the idea that we would draw military assistance from Israel, on the condition that they change a specific policy, I find to be absolutely outrageous. No, I would not condition it, and I think it’s a gigantic mistake. And I hope some of my candidates who are running with me for the nomination — I hope they misspoke or they were taken out of context.”

March 2020: ‘Above Politics, Beyond Politics’ 

Biden’s fiery speech before the pro-Israel lobby group, AIPAC, at their annual conference in March 2020, was a mere continuation of a long legacy that is predicated on his country’s blind support for Israel.

Biden’s discourse on Israel – a mixture of confused ideological notions, religious ideas and political interests – culminated in a call for American support for Israel that is “above politics and beyond politics”.  

“Israelis wake up every morning facing an existential threat from their neighbors’ rockets from Gaza, just like this past week .. That’s why I’ve always been adamant that Israel must be able to defend itself. It’s not just critical for Israeli security. I believe it’s critical for America’s security.” 

Palestinians “need to end the rocket attacks from Gaza,” Biden also said. “They need to accept once and for all the reality and the right of a secure democratic and Jewish state of Israel in the Middle East.”

– Ramzy Baroud is a journalist and the Editor of The Palestine Chronicle. He is the author of five books. His latest is “These Chains Will Be Broken: Palestinian Stories of Struggle and Defiance in Israeli Prisons” (Clarity Press, Atlanta). Dr. Baroud is a Non-resident Senior Research Fellow at the Center for Islam and Global Affairs (CIGA), Istanbul Zaim University (IZU). His website is www.ramzybaroud.net

%d bloggers like this: