Home Help Search Login Register
Welcome,Guest. Please login or register.
2018-12-11, 22:25:48
News: Registration with the OUR forum is now by invitation only.

Pages: 1 ... 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 [100]
Author Topic: 9/11 debate - enter at your own risk!  (Read 678661 times)

Hero Member

Posts: 2371
Everyman decries immorality
Ask yourselves: Are we the bad guys?


by R.Lesnoix for The Saker blog

One can fault the British for many things but not for their sense of humour. Some time ago I saw a sketch by the comedy duo Mitchell and Webb. They played two German soldiers, sitting in a fortified position at the front, enjoying the relative quiet of the moment. They were dressed in SS uniforms. In that typically British roundabout way of starting an awkward conversation one of them begins to talk about their uniforms. He has noticed something odd, something off-kilter. Their uniforms have skulls on them. So he asks the other one why that would be. In the following discussion they try to come up with positive associations with skulls. They try to find a valid reason why their uniforms would have skulls on them. When they fail to do so and can only come up with negative associations the first one looks the other in the eye and asks hesitantly “Are we the bad guys?”

It’s a funny sketch partly because with our knowledge and morality of today the idea of two SS-men wondering if they are the bad guys is almost grotesque. Off course they are the bad guys. “How could they not have known they were the bad guys?” Many will have this thought flash through their minds in some way or other. It is generally posed as a rhetorical question as it’s so obvious it requires no further deliberation. That is a mistake though. It’s a very serious question. It needs exploring because it goes to the root of why good men are capable of doing, or supporting, great evil. So let’s explore it. Why didn’t the Germans consider themselves to be the bad guys?

Let’s start with the skulls. Putting skulls on uniforms wasn’t unique to the SS. It had a long tradition in the German army and before that in the Prussian army. It was used by the hussars for example on their hats. One likely reason the SS used it was to tap into this history, to present themselves not as something completely new but as a new way of continuing old German traditions or if you like as one of different ways they tried to legitimize themselves as part of German society. Keep this trick of trying to look like something you’re not in mind. Nor were the Germans the only ones to use it, nor was it a purely military thing. If the skulls alone denote ‘evil’ what does that say of the Skull and Bones society which has many of Americas elite, even former presidents, among its members? Skulls have had many symbolic meanings throughout human history. Judging historical use with a narrow contemporary view will lead to wrong conclusions. So no, the presence of skulls on their uniform was not a dead give-away of being ‘the’ bad guys. Unfortunately this simplistic view, especially judging the ‘other’ with ones own limited viewpoint, is commonplace. Point to one very specific aspect that is easily identifiable as ‘bad’ from your point of view, ignoring context, and presto. You have your bad guys. Given that we are conditioned to view the world in absolutes that also gives you your good guys. If one side is bad, the other must be good.

For Germans in the 1930’s it was far from obvious they were the bad guys. They had lost the first world war, a war they felt was forced upon them by other countries. They had requested an armistice, believed they were promised a fair settlement and were then betrayed at Versailles. Some, maybe most, believed that the war was not lost at the front by the army but back home by spineless politicians. Hadn’t the army defeated the Russians on the eastern front after all? Germany lost significant parts of what it considered to be its ‘Heimat’ permanently while other parts were occupied by the allies. The exorbitant reparations they were forced to pay drove the country into economic misery. In other words, Germans largely felt themselves to be the victims of injustice. They felt robbed, they felt threatened, they felt betrayed, they felt wronged. So when someone came along who helped make things right, off course they went along. The economy improved, unemployment went down, political stability returned, the army was strengthened, lost parts of the ‘Heimat’ were regained and a settlement with the Soviets was arranged. From their point of view these were good things, worthy achievements even if it came with rough edges. When world war two broke out, it’s also easy to imagine this was seen as a reaction of the western powers to the resurgence of Germany as a continental power. It was just a new phase in a centuries old political game. This time though, the manner in which the conflict played out was much, much darker as civilians became the target in very direct ways. I’ll leave the rest of what happened for what it is. You all know the story.

When it finally ended Germans were, collectively, blamed for the crimes and misdeeds of their government. For most of them these came as a shock. Some were in denial and refused to accept them as true. Most accepted them though, especially when the stories of the average soldiers who had served on the eastern front or as occupation troops became more widespread. Given what they had seen and done, the camps didn’t seem that farfetched. While some argued over the details of what happened there and over exact numbers, and some still do, there’s no doubt of the brutality and wide scale murder that took place. The treatment of ordinary Soviet citizens and Soviet prisoners of war alone are testament to the evil nature of the Nazi regime. Note that this does not mean that their opponents were pure as snow. Whatever the misdeeds and crimes committed by the allies and Soviets, these do not justify or excuse what the Germans did in any way. It did make it easier though to see them as the bad guys and by inference, themselves as the good guys.

The Germans argued they hadn’t known what had been going on, other Germans were to blame, ‘Wir haben es nicht gewusst’. But looking at the scale of what happened we wonder how they could not have known. There were plenty of signs, plenty of proof in plain sight, not to mention all the public rhetoric their leaders had used. How could they not realize what was happening? How could they not know the murderous nature of their state? The counterargument against the German people can be paraphrased as ‘you could have known and you should have known’ combined with ‘looking away from what is happening in order not to see it does not absolve you of guilt.’ And truth be told, after the war the German people did carry this guilt collectively. They did realize how wrong they had been. But they also struggled with the question of how this had crept up upon them. How could they have been so blind? Individuals who had always thought of themselves as good people had somehow been led astray and had become more than just bad guys, they had supported and facilitated evil. And that question is crucial. If it could happen to the Germans, it can happen to others too. As Herman Goring said, “you don’t need the support of a majority of the population, you only need about 5% of them behind you as long as it’s the right 5%.” Does that sound familiar to anyone?

It’s easy to point fingers at a few guilty individuals but ultimately it takes a state with all its trappings to commit atrocities on this scale. And it wasn’t just the Germans who got caught up in this. Just look at how easily and seamlessly local authorities in conquered countries cooperated with the occupation authorities. Local police enforced German policies without much resistance. They cooperated to combat resistance groups and to arrest whomever the Germans wanted. People tend to have a natural inclination to follow institutionalized authority without questioning its moral legitimacy. Its moral legitimacy is assumed as nearly all people consider themselves to be, individually and collectively, the good guys, irrespective of the specific collective used to identify with. Given that we all are members of different collectives at any given time, it’s easy to use, consciously or subconsciously, a collective whose moral authority is obvious to ourselves. We then confuse the self-image we have of our morality with the morality of the institutions that rule our daily life.

Many in the western world identify as Christians for example and the Christian creed and morality is beyond doubt for them. So it becomes easy to say to one self ‘as Christians we have the moral high ground so obviously we (our institutions/governments) are the good guys’. In the west we also consider ourselves to be democracies and we elevate this onto the highest of pedestals ‘we are democracies, the most righteous form of government and therefor we hold the moral high ground so obviously we (our institutions/governments) are the good guys’. Even more abstract is the notion that we, in the west, are ‘free’ and therefor have the moral authority over those countries where ‘the people’ are ‘not free’. We believe that gives us the moral high ground so obviously we (our institutions/governments) are the good guys. We have become moral Pavlov-dogs. Dangle a so-called noble cause in front of us and any action, any action, undertaken by us (our institutions/governments) instantly becomes justified no matter what the morality of that action itself actually is. We have killed, directly or indirectly, children not by the hundreds, not by the thousands, not by the tens of thousands but by the hundreds of thousands over the last few decades in order to make the world ‘free’ and ‘safe for democracy’. Somehow that’s okay with us. But when our own government tells us Assad killed some children with chemical weapons (cue Pavlov-reaction) no proof is required and we accept ‘something’ must be done. Why? Because we (our institutions/governments) are the good guys and we’ve been conditioned to think that the good guys don’t lie. Despite all the lies we’ve witnessed we still think of them as incidents, not as the rule. It’s always individuals that lied or did wrong. ‘Tony Blair lied the UK into the Iraq war’. No, everyone did. The whole system is corrupted, not just individuals in it. The system rules and changes the individuals, not the other way around. We justify our belief in our authorities by saying that if it wasn’t true ‘someone’ would speak up. Lies that big can’t hold up. But when people do speak up we ignore or ridicule them, calling them conspiracy nuts. And a suspiciously large number of them have car accidents, commit suicide, are on planes that crash, suddenly get cancer or are the victim of robberies gone wrong. The scale of our self-delusion is mind-boggling.

For the Germans during and before world war two a similar association took hold. They felt they had been wronged in many ways after the first world war and that as the victims of that war they were only trying to make right those wrongs. So to them the moral authority obviously belonged to them no matter what they (their institutions/government) did. They saw themselves as the good guys. Period. At most they recognized some rough edges but not enough to question the moral authority of what they (their institutions/government) were doing. Latch on to one belief of absolute moral authority and the gates to mass-murder and atrocities are wide open. Machiavelli’s best known observation is the mechanism of ‘the goal justifies the means’ as a political tool. This also applies to morality. If people are convinced of their own moral superiority they stop questioning their actions. Any action is allowed. But moral authority never rests with just belief or creed or conviction. It is not absolute, it is not unquestionable. Ones morality is determined by ones actions and by ones inactions, not by belief. Remember, looking away in order not to be confronted by unpleasant realities is not a valid excuse to claim innocence. Not acting is a moral choice too. Not questioning your assumptions is also a moral choice. ‘God is on our side’ or its equivalent has been uttered by just about every side in a war at some point even when the warring sides were of the exact same religion. Now looking back that looks as absurd as two members of the SS wondering if they are the bad guys. But when you don’t question moral authority, when you simply assume it then both of these make complete sense.

Which begs the question, how will people in the future look back at us and our historical era? I am a citizen of one the western countries that thinks of itself as free, democratic and based on Judaeo-Christian moral authority. My fellow countrymen and women consider themselves to be the good guys. It’s so ingrained into the national consciousness it’s like a super-dogma. By implication they consider what their government does, especially internationally, morally good. ‘They are us and since we are good so too must they be’ the thinking, if any, goes. And yet domestically they denounce individual politicians and political parties in large numbers as corrupt, self-serving and elitist. The traditional political parties in most western countries are taking a beating in the polls as they are seen to represent not the people but their own pockets and supranational interests. Voters flock en masse to the so-called populist parties on both the left and right of the political spectrum. We denounce the European Union as completely undemocratic and ruled by technocrats who are at the beck-and-call of big business. Fewer and fewer of us consider ourselves to be Christians and even if we do it’s a vague sort of watered down version without much substance or clear morality. The popular narrative in fact is to be inclusive of ‘the other’ and their convictions. All creeds and convictions are supposedly equal. Tell that to the Kali-worshippers. And although we question and discard the very foundations of our own freedoms, our own democracy and our own Christian-based morality domestically, we still believe that our national and supranational governments and their attached institutions somehow represent freedom, democracy and moral authority. We still think we, both individually and collectively, are the good guys. We seem to be unable to separate the moral self-image of the individual from the morality of the state. And yet it stares us in the face.

The number of people that died in Iraq since the western aggression against that country started in 1990 has been estimated at several million. The economic sanctions imposed by the west between the first and second gulf war have cost an estimated 1.5 million Iraqi lives of which about 500.000 were children. When confronted with these numbers former US representative at the UN Madeline Albright stated that ‘it was worth it’. Hillary Clinton had a similar comment. I know of no western leader who back then condemned or denounced this and who acknowledged our actions as immoral and wrong. I could go on with numerous examples of how our western policies have resulted in mass casualties of civilians, including children, over the last few decades. If this one by itself does not start you to question morality nothing will. So if you’re not questioning now, maybe you should wonder why and take some time to contemplate the matter.

I do consider myself to be of high moral character. I have thought about this long and hard. I know right from wrong or at least I think I do. It is always tricky to confront ones own assumptions. I consider that what our western governments are doing is very, very wrong. I sense this clash between me as an individual and me as a member of a happy society that does, according to my individual sense of morality, evil. When I look around myself in my day to day life I don’t see it. Most people are like me. I feel like I fit in. Life looks nice and shiny. Bread and games for all. But when I widen the scope and see what those we let represent us do I shudder. And I feel sick to my stomach. For me there’s no doubt. The future historians will look at us and wonder in amazement. They’ll ask why we buried our head in the sand so deep, why we didn’t acknowledge the signs we were seeing. Why we didn’t call out our leaders on their immoral actions and attitudes. They’ll ask “how could they not have known they were the bad guys?”. Because we are. As long as we look away and do nothing we too are guilty. We enable the system and it fills me with shame. As long as we maintain our illusion and refuse to acknowledge that we are in fact not the free and democratic societies we pretend to be and do something about it we are as much to blame as our governments are.

R.Lesnoix is a concerned citizen who grew up during the Cold War under the constant fear of nuclear weapons. He is dismayed with the direction the western democracies are going in.

Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

Hero Member

Posts: 2371
Everyman decries immorality
After visiting Douma, western media begin to question ‘gas attack’ narrative


After speaking with eyewitnesses on the ground in Syria, even mainstream media are beginning to cast doubt on the West’s narrative of an alleged gas attack in Douma, as medics tell French, German and UK media it never happened.
Agence France-Presse (AFP), the world’s third largest news agency, and the Independent, a British online newspaper, have each published stories that question whether chlorine or any other chemical was used against Syrians in Eastern Ghouta on April 7.

In a French language video report, AFP spoke with Marwan Jaber, a medical student who witnessed the aftermath of the alleged attack.

“Some of [the victims] suffered from asthma and pulmonary inflammation. They received routine treatment and some were even sent home,” Jaber told AFP. “They showed no symptoms of a chemical attack. But some foreigners entered while we were in a state of chaos and sprinkled people with water, and some of them were even filming it.”

Jaber’s testimony is consistent with claims made by a Douma doctor who spoke with veteran UK journalist Robert Fisk. Although Dr. Assim Rahaibani did not personally witness what happened in the medical clinic, he said that “all the doctors” he works with “know what happened.”

According to Rahaibani, intense shelling had created dust clouds that seeped into the basements and cellars where people lived. “People began to arrive here suffering from hypoxia, oxygen loss. Then someone at the door, a ‘White Helmet’, shouted ‘Gas!’, and a panic began. People started throwing water over each other. Yes, the video was filmed here, it is genuine, but what you see are people suffering from hypoxia – not gas poisoning.”

Writing in the Independent, Fisk noted that locals he spoke with “never believed in” the gas attack stories – and that tales of President Bashar Assad’s chemical atrocities had been spread by armed Islamist groups who had imprisoned and enslaved thousands of people in Ghouta before the town was liberated by Syrian forces in April.

Meanwhile, a report aired by the German RTL Group-owned channel n-tv says it’s unclear whether the attack took place at all, given that most of the locals told them on camera they didn’t smell any chemicals at all, one local told them he remembers a “weird smell” and was fine after a glass of water, and one man, who didn’t want to show his face, insisted there was a “smell of chlorine.”

However, a local doctor told the channel: “Saturday, a week ago, we treated people with breathing problems, but chlorine or gas poisoning – no, those are different symptoms.”

All of these stories published by different outlets corroborate testimony from two men who appeared in the “gas attack” footage spread far and wide by western media and governments. Interviewed by the Russian military, the two men said they were unknowing accomplices in the gas attack ruse. “We were working and did not pay attention to who was filming us,” the first eyewitness said. “They were filming us, and then a man came in and started screaming that this was a chemical attack…People got scared and started spraying each other with water and using inhalers. Doctors told us that there was no chemical poisoning.”

Doctors and medical workers questioned by the Russian Center for Reconciliation confirmed that there had been no reports of patients suffering from chemical poisoning in Douma during the timeframe of the alleged gas attack.

The French and British media reports seem to contradict statements made by Paris and London, which have both stated unequivocally that the chemical attack did take place – and that Assad was responsible.

READ MORE: UK airstrikes in Syria based on ‘hearsay’ – Labour MP Chris Williamson (VIDEO)

French President Emmanuel Macron said before Saturday’s missile strike against Syria that he had proof that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had used chlorine to attack civilians in a militant-held enclave of Eastern Ghouta.

For her part, British Prime Minister Theresa May insisted that a “significant body of information including intelligence indicates the Syrian Regime is responsible for this latest attack.”

Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

Hero Member

Posts: 2371
Everyman decries immorality
Western media cover tracks of Trump, May and Macron's war crime in Syria


With astounding double-think, the US and Britain accuse Russia of "tampering" with the alleged chemical-weapon attack site in Syria's Douma – just days after the US, UK and France barraged the county with over 100 missiles.
If anyone is guilty of tampering with the alleged crime scene, it is the NATO trio who rushed to bomb Syria just as inspectors belonging to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) arrived in Syria – invited there by the Syrian and Russian governments.

The frenzied Western media campaign to find Syria and Russia guilty of a war crime involving alleged chemical weapons is further highlighted by the reporting this week by award-winning British journalist Robert Fisk.

Fisk, who has been covering Middle East war zones for nearly 40 years, went to Douma city to file his report for The Independent. Credit goes to The Independent for publishing Fisk's investigative work.

In the aftermath of the weekend's airstrikes, what he found from interviewing local people and medics is arresting, if not shocking. From Fisk's witness-gathering report, there was no gas attack carried out on April 7 – in stark contradiction to what the US, British and French governments have been declaring in hysterical tones for the past two weeks.

Those declarations culminated in the US-led bombing of Syria at the weekend. What's more, the US, British and French leaders are reserving the right to carry out further strikes on Syria – if "the regime repeats its chemical-weapons attacks on civilians."

What Robert Fisk reports from inside Douma corroborates what the Syrian government and its Russian ally have been saying consistently since the alleged incident on April 7. The incident, they say, was staged by the so-called "first responder" group known as the White Helmets, who work hand-in-glove with notorious terrorist outfits like Jaysh al-Islam and Al-Nusra Front. The White Helmets are also on the pay roll of the American CIA, as well as British and French intelligence agencies.

Similar to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's earlier claim, Fisk reports that on April 7, a panic scene was engendered in Douma's hospital by White Helmets activists who shouted that "chemical weapons" were being deployed. These activists began dousing people with water hoses and conveniently had video cameras on hand to capture the chaotic scenes acted out by unwitting civilians. A doctor in the hospital confirmed this to Fisk.

As for the supposed dozens of dead that Western governments and media blamed on "animal Assad" and Russian complicity, there is no evidence of the alleged victims. Video footage of dead people in a war zone is hardly proof.

This means that US President Trump and his British and French counterparts, Theresa May and Emmanuel Macron, just launched a criminal aggression on Syria in grave violation of international law and the country's sovereignty. This is exactly what many independent observers were decrying at the time of the missile barrage, warning that the presumed evidence for a chemical attack was far from substantiated.

Indeed, the suspicion is that Trump, May and Macron knew that their evidential ground for attacking Syria was impossibly thin, and that is why they rushed to bomb the country. It was a decision hastened by the arrival of the OPCW inspectors heading to Douma. The inspectors are due to start their investigative work on Wednesday – delayed apparently by security concerns.

In all probability, the Douma incident was a propaganda stunt orchestrated by Western-backed anti-government militants and their White Helmets media agents, precisely in order to provoke an external military attack on Syria by the US, Britain and France.

Several things stand out about Robert Fisk's latest reporting. This is exactly the kind of critical journalism that other Western media outlets should have been engaged in following the alleged chemical weapon attack on April 7. Credit goes to Fisk and The Independent. But it is a shameful case of "too little, too late."

Also, it is notable how Fisk's reportage is being roundly ignored – at least so far – by other mainstream Western media outlets. That's an impressive feat of self-censorship at a crucial time when the US, British and French governments should be open to accusations of committing a war crime on Syria over their latest blitzkrieg.

This is especially so, given their warnings of more to come, over "further" chemical-weapons use. The urgent concern is that these governments are giving themselves a license to act on more false flags. They should be held rigorously to account for their claims.

This disregard for international law is made possible because of the appalling willingness of Western mainstream media to regurgitate self-serving claims made by terrorist-affiliated groups in Syria and their propaganda outlets.

American, British and French mainstream media have given saturated coverage to the White Helmets and the Syrian American Medical Society, and the dodgy one-man-band operation in Coventry known as the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. CNN, the BBC and France 24 cite these groups as if they are "authoritative" and impartial, when in fact they are all part of the regime-change campaign in Syria sponsored by the US and its British and French allies.

It is telling, too, how Robert Fisk is being assailed as a "Syrian, Russian stooge" on social media. The one Western mainstream journalist who has had the integrity to delve into Syria's Douma to uncover a very different critical perspective – one that disproves the claims peddled by the US, British and French leaders and other mainstream media – is being vilified for principled journalism.

Western corporate media are a grotesque mockery of public information and critical, independent accounting of government power.

Apart from Robert Fisk, the few other Western journalists to have ventured into Syria to report on what is really happening are independent, "alternative" sources like Eva Bartlett, Vanessa Beeley and Patrick Henningsen. They have exposed the "Oscar-winning" White Helmets group, which is actually complicit in staging atrocities against civilians living under a reign of terror imposed by their terrorist affiliates. It is understood the White Helmets activists behind the Douma provocation on April 7 have since fled the city along with the terrorist gangs under the cover of an evacuation deal with the liberating Syrian and Russian forces, who are now in control of most of the Eastern Ghouta suburbs near Damascus.

Western media journalists, if they were really committed to principles of accuracy and critical investigation, should be poring over the rubble in Douma, interviewing local people and finding out what really happened. But they are not.

That is why, one suspects, they are not there. That is why the US and Britain are now accusing Russia of "tampering" with the site in Douma – because there is no evidence of a chemical-weapons attack, as Robert Fisk reports.

That means the US, British and French governments just committed a brazen war crime.

This would also explain why Western mainstream media have now quickly moved their focus to allegations of "Russian cyberattacks" on American and British infrastructure. This is a classic case of "keeping ahead of the story." Western governments and their dutiful media do not have a "story" – at least not the one they claim – in Syria, so the imperative is to change to another subject as quickly as possible.

Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

Hero Member

Posts: 2371
Everyman decries immorality
BBC Reporter Discourages Syria Questions Due To "Information War" With Russia


Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com,

A BBC interview is making the rounds today among opponents of western interventionism in Syria. The subject of the interview, Admiral Alan West, voiced some much needed skepticism about the establishment narrative around the alleged gas attack in Douma.


Everybody’s talking about it because West is an empire loyalist that nobody in their right mind would accuse of being an “Assad apologist” or “useful idiot of the Kremlin”, as anyone else who doesn’t swallow the official story hook, line and sinker is uniformly labeled.

West made some sensible comments about the White Helmets and the fact that Jaysh al-Islam had far more incentive to stage such an attack than Assad had to perpetrate it. Even more helpful was his personal account of having been aggressively pressured to make false reports about the success of the British bombing campaign in Bosnia, suggesting that those pressures can lead to bad intelligence and erroneous military responses.

“I just wonder, you know we’ve had some bad experiences on intelligence,” West said.

“When I was chief of defense intelligence, I had huge pressure put on me politically to try and say that our bombing campaign in Bosnia was achieving all sorts of things which it wasn’t. I was put under huge pressure, so I know the things that can happen with intelligence.”

So that’s a very significant addition to the dialogue. For me, though, the most interesting comments made in that interview came not from West, but from the BBC reporter who was interviewing him.

In the latter half of the interview, BBC’s Annita McVeigh asked the following questions after West’s comment about Bosnia:

“We know that the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday, or accused a western state on Friday, of perhaps fabricating evidence in Douma or somehow being involved in what happened in Douma. Given that we’re in an information war with Russia on so many fronts, do you think perhaps it’s inadvisable to be stating this so publicly given your position and your profile? Isn’t there a danger that you’re muddying the waters?”


Wait a minute, did that just happen? Did a BBC reporter just suggest that it could possibly be “inadvisable” for a retired naval officer to make public statements questioning what we’re being told to believe about Syria? That the conversation shouldn’t even be had? That the questions shouldn’t even be asked? Because we’re trying to win an “information war”? Did McVeigh really suggest that the intelligence of the same war machine which led us into Iraq on false pretenses should not be questioned at the risk of “muddying the waters”?

West was introduced as someone who was skeptical of the official Douma narrative, so he didn’t spring this stuff on McVeigh out of the blue and her questions could easily have been prepared in advance. I am genuinely curious if she came up with this bizarre line of inquiry on her own or was given it by a superior. Attempts to contact McVeigh via email and Twitter have thus far gone unanswered; I’ll update this if she responds.

You know you’re in trouble when the military man tries to do the journalist’s job by asking questions and holding power to account… and the journalist tries to stop him.

I have said that truth is the first casualty in war and that this is doubly true of cold war, but it isn’t supposed to be that way. We all know that the BBC has an extensive history of functioning as a propaganda firm for the western war machine, but it isn’t supposed to be that way. It isn’t supposed to be a BBC reporter’s job to concern herself with beating Russia in an “information war”, it’s supposed to be her job to tell the truth and hold power to account.

By suggesting that winning an “information war” with Russia should take priority over critical thinking and truth telling, McVeigh essentially admitted that she is a propagandist for the western war engine. Her comments say a lot about how she sees her role at the BBC, and it’s likely that this is a culture that is being fostered within the entire outlet as well.

This is very concerning. Anyone who’s studied the situation in Syria understands that western military involvement always comes with a risk of confrontation with not just the armed forces of the Syrian government, but with those of Russia and Iran as well. All that it would take right now is a miscommunication or a weapon discharging in an unintended way to set off a swift chain of events that could lead to all out hot war, which when Russia is involved always comes with the possibility of a nuclear warhead being deployed by either side in the chaos and setting Mutually Assured Destruction into effect.

These are not at all outlandish possibilities to consider; they are breathing down our necks as you read this. And yet in this hotly volatile climate, people are being dissuaded from asking questions.

We as individuals are all vastly smarter and wiser than the oligarchs who rule us, and we can handle picking our way through a wide array of information, even information which runs counter to western interests in an “information war”. Ideas are not inherently dangerous. What is dangerous is truth being hidden from the public, making us incapable of making accurate determinations about what’s true and what’s false and using that knowledge to make our wishes known to power. What is dangerous is escalations with a nuclear superpower and its allies and a steadily increasing hostility toward skepticism and detente advocacy.

It isn’t their place to protect us from ideas and information. It isn’t their place to use us as pawns in their idiotic “information war”. They need to stop concerning themselves with controlling the way we think.

We are not children that they get to lie to because they believe it is in our best interest. The state of the world today shows that the people running our media and our governments are the very last people on earth who should be making such calls on our behalf.

Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

Hero Member

Posts: 2371
Everyman decries immorality
We as individuals are all vastly smarter and wiser than the oligarchs who rule us

Careful Caitlin.. do not underestimate your designated enemy, and do not deceive yourself with misplaced generalisations. I know a lot of people who are thick as ****! Their 'ideas' are given to them and they live, act and vote accordingly.

Ideas are not inherently dangerous.

Some would disagree:


In the sense that the only thing that can change the world for the better is new ideas and as such 'ideas' are inherently dangerous to an entrenched order.



In philosophy, ideas are usually construed as mental representational images of some object. Ideas can also be abstract concepts that do not present as mental images.[1] Many philosophers have considered ideas to be a fundamental ontological category of being. The capacity to create and understand the meaning of ideas is considered to be an essential and defining feature of human beings. In a popular sense, an idea arises in a reflexive, spontaneous manner, even without thinking or serious reflection, for example, when we talk about the idea of a person or a place. A new or original idea can often lead to innovation.[2]

Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
Sr. Member

Posts: 309

What Can Be Done?


Paul Craig Roberts

April 30, 2018

It is up to Europe whether or not the Earth dies in nuclear Armageddon.

European governments do not realize their potential to save the world from Washington’s aggression, because the western Europeans are accustomed to being Washington’s vassal states since the end of World War 2, and the eastern and central Europeans have accepted Washington’s vassalage since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Vassalage pays well if all the costs are not counted.

By joining NATO, the eastern and central Europeans permitted Washington to move US military presence to Russia’s borders. This military presence on Russia’s borders gave Washington undue confidence that Russia also could be coerced into a vassal state existence. Despite the dire fate of the two finest armies ever assembled—Napoleon’s Grand Army and that of Germany’s Wehrmacht—Washington hasn’t learned that the two rules of warfare are: (1) Don’t march on Russia. (2) Don’t march on Russia.

Because of Europe’s subservience to Washington, Washington is unlikely to learn this lesson before Washington marches on Russia.

Washington in its hubristic idiocy has already begun this march piecemeal with the coup in Ukraine and with its attacks on Syrian military positions. As I wrote earlier today https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/04/30/syrian-cisis-escalates/ Washington is escalating the crisis in Syria.

What can stop this before it explodes into war is eastern and central Europe’s decision to disengage as enablers of Washington’s aggression.

There are no benefits to Europe of being in NATO. Europeans are not threatened by Russian aggression, but they are threatened by Washington’s aggression against Russia. If the American neoconservatives and their Israeli allies succeed in provoking a war, all of Europe would be destroyed. Forever.

What is wrong with European politicians that they take this risk with the peoples that they govern?

Europe is still a place of beauty constructed by humans over the ages—architecturally, artistically, and intellectually—and the museum should not be destroyed. Once free of Washington’s vassalage, Europe could even be brought back to creative life.

Europe is already suffering economically from Washington’s illegal sanctions against Russia forced upon Europeans by Washington and from the millions of non-European refugees flooding the European countries fleeing from Washington’s illegal wars against Muslim peoples, wars that Americans are forced to fight for the benefit of Israel.

What do Europeans get for the extreme penalties imposed on them as Washington’s vassals? They get nothing but the threat of Armageddon. A small handful of European “leaders” get enormous subsidies from Washington for enabling Washington’s illegal agendas. Just take a look at Tony Blair’s enormous fortune, which is not the normal reward for a British prime minister.

Europeans, including the “leaders,” have much more to gain from being connected to the Russia/China Silk Road project. It is the East that is rising, not the West. The Silk Road would connect Europe to the rising East. Russia has undeveloped territory full of resources—Siberia—that is larger than the United States. On a purchasing power parity basis, China is already the world’s largest economy. Militarily the Russian/Chinese alliance is much more than a match for Washington.

If Europe had any sense, any leadership, it would tell Washington good-bye.

What is the value to Europe of Washington’s hegemony over the world? How do Europeans, as opposed to a handful of politicians receiving bags full of money from Washington, benefit from their vassalage to Washington? Not one benefit can be identified. Washington’s apologists say that Europe is afraid of being dominated by Russia. So why aren’t Europeans afraid of their 73 years of domination by Washington, especially a domination that is leading them into military conflict with Russia?

Unlike Europeans and Russians, Americans have scant experience with wartime casualties. Just one World War 1 battle, the Battle of Verdun, produced more casualties than the battle deaths that US has experienced in all the wars of its existence beginning with the Revolutionary War for independence from Britain.

The World War 1 Battle of Verdun,which took place prior to the US entry into the war, was the longest and most costly battle in human history. An estimate in 2000 found a total of 714,231 casualties, 377,231 French and 337,000 German, for an average of 70,000 casualties a month; other recent estimates increase the number of casualties to 976,000 during the battle, with 1,250,000 suffered at Verdun during the war.

In contrast, US casualties for World War 1 after US entry were 53,402 battle deaths and 200,000 nonmortal woundings.

Here is the list of US battle deaths from the War of Revolution through the “global war on terror” as of August 2017:

American Revolution: 4,435
War of 1812: 2,260
Wars against native Americans (1817-1898):   1,000
Mexican War:   1,733
War of Northern Aggression :
North:   104,414
South:   74,524
Spanish-American War:   385
World War 2:   291,557
Korean War:   33,739
Vietnam War:   47,434
Gulf War:   148

This comes to 561,629 battle deaths

If we add the battle deaths of the global war on terror as of Aug. 2017—6,930—we have 568,559 US battle deaths in all US wars. See: https://www.infoplease.com/us/american-wars/americas-wars-us-casualties-and-veterans

That compares to 714,231 casualties, from which I am unable at this time to separate battle deaths from nonmortal wounds and maiming from a single World War 1 battle that did not involve US soldiers.

In other words, except for the Confederate States and native Americans, who endured enormous Union war crimes, the US has no experience of war. So Washington enters war with ease. The next time, however, will be Armageddon, and Washington will no longer exist. And neither will the rest of us.

US deaths in World War 1 were low because the US did not enter the war until the last year. Similarly in World War 2. Japan was defeated by the loss of her navy and air force and by the firebombing of Tokyo and other Japanese cities, which required few US battle deaths. The nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were gratuitous and took place when Japan was asking to surrender. Approximately 200,000 Japanese civilians died in the nuclear attacks and no Americans except prisoners of war held in those cities. In Europe, as in World War 1, the US did not enter the war against Germany until the last year when the Wehrmacht had already been broken and defeated by the Soviet Red Army. The Normandy invasion faced scant opposition as all German forces were on the Russian front.

If there is a World War 3 the US and all of the Western world would be immediately destroyed as nothing stands between the West and the extraordinary nuclear capability of Russia except the likelihood of complete and total destruction. If China enters on Russia’s side, as is expected, the destruction of the entirety of the Western World will be for all time.

Why does Europe enable this scenario? Is there no humanity, no intelligence left anywhere in Europe? Is Europe nothing but a collection of cattle awaiting slaughter from the machinations of the crazed American neocons? Are there no European political leaders with one ounce of common sense, one ounce of integrity?

If not, doom is upon us as there is no humanity or intelligence in Washington.

Europe must take the lead, especially the central Europeans. These are peoples who were liberated from the Nazis by the Russians and who have in the 21st century experienced far more aggression from Washington’s pursuit of its hegemony they they have experienced from Moscow.

If Europe breaks away from Washington’s control, there is hope for life. If not, we are as good as dead.

Hero Member

Posts: 2371
Everyman decries immorality
Great Britain


A single Kingdom of Great Britain resulted from the union of the Kingdom of England (which had already comprised the present-day countries of England and Wales) and the Kingdom of Scotland by the 1707 Acts of Union. More than a hundred years before, in 1603, King James VI, King of Scots, had inherited the throne of England, but it was not until 1707 that the two countries' parliaments agreed to form a political union. In 1801, Great Britain united with the neighbouring Kingdom of Ireland, forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, which was renamed the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" after the Irish Free State seceded in 1922.

Political union


A political union is a type of state which is composed of or created out of smaller states. The process is called unification. Unifications of states that used to be together and are reuniting is referred to as reunification. Unlike a personal union or real union, the individual states share a central government and the union is recognized internationally as a single political entity. A political union may also be called a legislative union or state union.



Corporatism, also known as corporativism,[1] is the sociopolitical organization of a society by major interest groups, known as corporate groups (as well as syndicates, or guilds) such as agricultural, business, ethnic, labour, military, patronage, or scientific affiliations, on the basis of their common interests.[2] The relevant adjective is corporatist (or corporativist), but the adjective corporate is also sometimes confusingly used though it normally refers to the underlying interest groups (corporate groups), not their organization of society. Corporatism is theoretically based on the interpretation of a community as an organic body, a living organism with different organs.[3] The term "corporatism" is based on the Latin root word corpus (plural corpora) meaning "body"[4] or, in the case of Fascist Italy, on the word corporazione (derived from the aforementioned Latin word, with the meaning of "embodiment", "association"), the Italian name for what was known in Germanic Europe as a Medieval guild.

In 1881, Pope Leo XIII commissioned theologians and social thinkers to study corporatism and provide a definition for it. In 1884 in Freiburg, the commission declared that corporatism was a "system of social organization that has at its base the grouping of men according to the community of their natural interests and social functions, and as true and proper organs of the state they direct and coordinate labor and capital in matters of common interest".[5] Corporatism is related to the sociological concept of structural functionalism.[6] Corporate social interaction is common within kinship groups such as families, clans and ethnicities.[7] In addition to humans, certain animal species like penguins exhibit strong corporate social organization.[8][9] Corporatist types of community and social interaction are common to many ideologies, including absolutism, capitalism, conservatism, fascism, liberalism, progressivism, reactionism and guild socialism.[10]

Corporatism may also refer to economic tripartism involving negotiations between business, labour and state interest groups to establish economic policy.[11] This is sometimes also referred to as neo-corporatism and is associated with social democracy.



Corporatocracy /ˌkɔːrpərəˈtɒkrəsi/, a portmanteau of corporate and -ocracy (form of government), short form corpocracy, is a recent term used to refer to an economic and political system controlled by corporations or corporate interests.[1] It is most often used today as a term to describe the current economic situation in a particular country, especially the United States.[2][3] This is different from corporatism, which is the organisation of society into groups with common interests. Corporatocracy as a term is often used by observers across the political spectrum.[2][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][excessive citations]

Economist Jeffrey Sachs described the United States as a corporatocracy in The Price of Civilization (2011).[16] He suggested that it arose from four trends: weak national parties and strong political representation of individual districts, the large U.S. military establishment after World War II, large corporations using money to finance election campaigns, and globalization tilting the balance of power away from workers.[16]

This collective is what author C Wright Mills in 1956 called the 'power elite', wealthy individuals who hold prominent positions in corporatocracies. They control the process of determining a society's economic and political policies.[17]

The concept has been used in explanations of bank bailouts, excessive pay for CEOs, as well as complaints such as the exploitation of national treasuries, people, and natural resources.[18] It has been used by critics of globalization,[19] sometimes in conjunction with criticism of the World Bank[20] or unfair lending practices,[18] as well as criticism of "free trade agreements".



Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/) is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism,[1][2] characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition and control of industry and commerce,[3] which came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe.[4] The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I before it spread to other European countries.[4] Opposed to liberalism, Marxism and anarchism, fascism is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[5][6][7][4][8][9]

Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes to the nature of war, society, the state and technology. The advent of total war and the total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilians and combatants. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war.[10][11] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.[10][11]

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[12] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[12] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature and views political violence, war and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[13][14][15][16] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[17]

Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far-right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.

What is the only structure that stands in the way of Corporate Fascism ?

Sovereign Independence and Self Determination of unique peoples and the nation state they control for the common good of those peoples, hence the constant drive for political union into a federalised nation, and the cultural genocide of independent peoples via open borders and the racism card to silence dissent. The one party system of the west operates under the illusion of democracy and political choice but in truth all mainstream political parties work towards the goal of a one world government via the political union mechanism. The current propaganda war disseminated by the west is designed to designate independent sovereign states as strategic enemies of the federation and to form a national consensus for aggressive warfare. Conspiracy and deception to commit fait accompli is the main weapon of choice to achieve these goals:

Fait Accompli


Fait accompli, a French phrase commonly used to describe an action which is completed before those affected by it are in a position to query or reverse it

Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

Hero Member

Posts: 2371
Everyman decries immorality
Charlemagne Prize


The Charlemagne Prize (German: Karlspreis; full name originally Internationaler Karlspreis der Stadt Aachen, International Charlemagne Prize of the City of Aachen, since 1988 Internationaler Karlspreis zu Aachen, International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen) is a prize awarded for work done in the service of European unification.

The first Charlemagne Prize was awarded to Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi, the founder of the Pan-European Movement.

Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi


Richard Nikolaus Eijiro, Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi[1] (November 16, 1894 – July 27, 1972) was an Austrian-Japanese politician, philosopher, and Count of Coudenhove-Kalergi. The pioneer of European integration, he served as the founding president of the Paneuropean Union for 49 years, which would be the preliminary ideological foundation of the European Union.[2][3] His parents were Heinrich von Coudenhove-Kalergi, an Austro-Hungarian diplomat, and Mitsuko Aoyama, the daughter of an oil merchant, antiques-dealer, and major landowner in Tokyo.[4] His childhood name in Japan was Aoyama Eijiro. He became a Czechoslovak citizen in 1919 and then took French nationality from 1939 until his death.

His first book, Pan-Europa, was published in 1923 and contained a membership form for the Pan-Europa movement, which held its first Congress in 1926 in Vienna. In 1927, Aristide Briand was elected honorary president of the Pan-Europa movement. Public figures who attended Pan-Europa congresses included Albert Einstein, Thomas Mann and Sigmund Freud.[5]

Coudenhove-Kalergi was the first recipient of the Charlemagne Prize in 1950. The 1972–1973 academic year at the College of Europe was named in his honour. Coudenhove-Kalergi proposed Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" as the music for the European Anthem. He also proposed a Europe Day, European postage stamp[6] and many artefacts for the movement (e.g. badges and pennants).

Angela Merkel received the COUDENHOVE-KALERGI PRIZE in 2010


"Hundreds of Germans are attempting to bring criminal charges against
   Chancellor Angela Merkel, accusing her of treason by opening the
   borders of Germany to mass migration."

Blair wins the Charlemagne Prize


Tony Blair becomes the third British PM to receive this annual prize for promoting European unity.

The International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen


Charlemagne Prize Laureate 2018

Emmanuel Macron

The President of the French Republic, Emmanuel Macron, will be awarded the International Charlemagne Prize of Aachen on 10 May 2018.

Emmanuel Macron receives Charlemagne Prize for European unity in Aachen


French President Emmanuel Macron received the Charlemagne Prize in Aachen "in recognition of his vision of a new Europe." In his acceptance speech, Macron described his long-term goals for the European bloc.

Suspect in deadly Paris knife attack was native of Chechnya, official says


A knife-wielding suspect who slashed five people, killing one, in central Paris on Saturday night -- before being slain by French authorities -- has been identified as a native of Chechnya, born in 1997, a French judicial official said.

The parents of the suspect, who was claimed as a “soldier” of ISIS after the attack, have been detained for questioning, the official said.



In law, treason is the crime that covers some of the more extreme acts against one's nation or sovereign.[1] Historically, treason also covered the murder of specific social superiors, such as the murder of a husband by his wife or that of a master by his servant. Treason against the king was known as high treason and treason against a lesser superior was petty treason. A person who commits treason is known in law as a traitor.

At times, the term traitor has been used as a political epithet, regardless of any verifiable treasonable action. In a civil war or insurrection, the winners may deem the losers to be traitors. Likewise the term traitor is used in heated political discussion – typically as a slur against political dissidents, or against officials in power who are perceived as failing to act in the best interest of their constituents. In certain cases, as with the Dolchstoßlegende (Stab-in-the-back myth), the accusation of treason towards a large group of people can be a unifying political message. Treason is considered to be different and on many occasions a separate charge from "treasonable felony" in many parts of the world.

Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

Hero Member

Posts: 2371
Everyman decries immorality
We were lied to! Secret document FCO 30/1048 kept truth about EU from British for 30 years


A SECRET document, which remained locked away for 30 years, advised the British Government to COVER-UP the realities of EU membership so that by the time the public realised what was happening it would be too late.

Surprised to see this in the UK MSM ? Me too! Now where is the BBC report on this I can't seem to find it..

I can find a complaint about it though:


Jeremy Vine
Channel: BBC Radio 2
Programme Date: 24/05/2016

Author: Ratcatcher, Westminster Sewers

An interview was arranged head to head between Nigel Lawson and Neil Kinnock under the heading of those politicians that have changed their minds over Europe and these were invited to put their story. However what the program failed to mention was that Neil Kinnock was along with his wife, appointed an EU commissioner and as such became multi millionaires from their positions. What was also not mentioned was that it was Neil Kinnock that sacked Marta Andreasen the EU chief Auditor, after she reported that Fraud and Theft from the EU ran into billions of euros and she could not sign off the accounts. This man and his wife were bought and paid for by the EU and supported the attempted cover up of fraud and theft. The EU made them both multimillionaires from taxpayers money, they are not fit to give any kind of opinion about the EU.

2 Comments on “Jeremy Vine”
06.06.2016 AT 9:03 AM
Read her book Brussels Laid Bare. The Leave campaign should also have pointed this out. Also the Jean Monnet quote That the EU is a superstate, that the public should not be told this, that the EU would be all about economics to conceal the true meaning of the EU to bring about a Federal supersater , the FCO 30/1048 document showing how the public were lied to by Edward Heath and then Harold Wilson, this should be the core of the Leave EU campaign

06.10.2016 AT 8:13 PM
Disgrace!!! Can these facts be made to wider the wider public.

Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.

Hero Member

Posts: 2371
Everyman decries immorality
I would love to post John Wight's investigative op-ed from a western MSM outlet, but they don't have articles of this quality, so I post it from RT:

Can Pyongyang trust Washington? Ask Native American Chief Red Eagle


John Wight

Trump's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear agreement casts serious doubts over Washington's role in the peace process on the Korean Peninsula.
It poses the question of how Washington can possibly be trusted to keep its word when it comes to guaranteeing North Korea's security if it proceeds with denuclearization and the dismantlement of its nuclear development program. For as any serious student of US history knows, trusting Washington to keep its word is akin to trusting a crocodile not to close its jaws upon putting your head in its mouth.

With this history of mendacity and duplicity in mind, the recent photo op involving US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and North Korean leader Kim Jong-un – shaking hands and smiling at the camera – calls to mind Shakespeare's admonition: "False face must hide what the false heart doth know."

Don't believe me? Just ask Native American Indian Chief Red Eagle.

In her landmark book on the shameful history of Indian Removals, 'The Trail of Tears,' Gloria Jahoda recounts a meeting that took place between Red Eagle and US General and future President Andrew Jackson in 1813. It occurred in the aftermath of the futile attempt by Red Eagle and his people to halt the westward expansion of white European settlers into their lands.

After a hard fought struggle against overwhelming odds in which hundreds of his warriors were killed, and desperate to save his tribe's women and children, Red Eagle arrived at Jackson's headquarters to offer himself up in surrender. According to Jahoda, despite shaking hands with his Indian counterpart and guaranteeing the safety of his people and their right to remain in peace on their own land, Andrew Jackson was convinced that "America's frontiers would always be frontiers while there were Indians to annoy the settlers. The Indians must go." Thus Jackson "silently pledged to himself to the policy of Indian Removal which in his presidency was to become law. It would be a simple law: any Indian who remained on his ancestral lands affirming his Indian identity would be a criminal."

The burning question is whether 2018 is a re-run of 1813, with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in the role of Andrew Jackson and Kim Jong-un a latter day Red Eagle; with the former providing assurances to the latter that neither he nor the government he represents has any intention of fulfilling?

Just how much trust can the North Koreans place in the word or an administration which at the same time it is pledging to guarantee their security in return for denuclearization, is unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty its predecessor made with Iran in conjunctions with the other five permanent members of the UN Security Council plus Germany over its nuclear development program?

History is the best teacher and never more than now, crucial for a world interested in stability and peace when it comes to understanding the nature of what it is dealing with in Washington.

Just in case anyone is under any illusions in this respect, US author William Blum in his classic book 'Rogue State,' described in the subtitle as "a guide to the world's only superpower," lays it out: "The leaders of the United States strive for world domination, for hegemony wherever possible; this had been their main occupation for over a century, it's what they do for a living."

He goes on: "The United States, NATO and the European Union form a Holy Triumvirate. The Holy Triumvirate has subsidiaries, chiefly the International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade Organization, and International Criminal Court. All help to keep in line those governments lacking the Holy Triumvirate seal of approval."

Another leader with hard experience of Washington's duplicity and perfidy is Mikhail Gorbachev, hailed for his role in ending the first Cold War, though in the process unable to save the Soviet Union.

Based on declassified documents, a 2017 report by the Washington-based independent research institute, the National Security Archive, confirms that during negotiations with the Soviet government, led by Gorbachev and undertaken as part of the process of bringing the Cold War to an end, categorical assurances were given by Western governments, led by Washington, that upon the reunification of Germany there would be no attempt to expand NATO eastward towards Russia's borders.

In fact, a "cascade of assurances" was given to the Soviets, with then-US Secretary of State James Baker going as far as to pledge that NATO would expand "not one inch eastward" in a meeting with Gorbachev on February 9, 1990. It was only as a result of these assurances that the Soviet leadership was prepared to accept German reunification, given its security ramifications in a period of political turmoil.

Returning to the Trump administration's withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal, the decision, clearly, was taken at the behest of a fundamentalist neocon foreign policy establishment in Washington in conjunction with US regional allies, Israel and Saudi Arabia. Thus the security of the American people and stability of the Middle East has been sacrificed on the altar of a hegemonic agenda that can only sound a warning in Pyongyang that Washington's objective is not peace with North Korea but the country's surrender.

Further proof is the demand issued by Trump's notorious national security adviser, John Bolton, that the North Koreans must ship all their nuclear weapons to the US in return for assurances on their security and a relaxation of US sanctions. Such a move by the North Koreans would be folly, tantamount to placing themselves at the mercy of a neocon Taliban.

Washington's role in any process of peace and reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula can, ultimately, only be an impediment to its chances of success. If it is to succeed, then Washington must be excluded, requiring that the South Koreans step forward as an independent state and refuse to accept any longer its status as a US satellite. The Trump administration's demand that Pyongyang dismantle its nuclear deterrent as a precondition for peace and reconciliation is an impertinence that should be treated with the contempt it deserves. If there is to be a precondition, it should be a joint one on the part of the North and South Korean governments, demanding the departure of US troops and military installations from the peninsula.

Whatever happens, none should forget the price paid by Red Eagle and his people for trusting the assurances of Washington: We were told that they wished merely to pass through our country… to seek for gold in the far west… Yet before the ashes of the council are cold, the Great Father is building his forts among us… His presence here is… an insult to the spirits of our ancestors. Are we then to give up their sacred graves to be allowed for corn?

Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
Sr. Member

Posts: 309
‘The Saker’ Isn’t Just Wrong, He’s Irrelevant – Putin’s An Excellent Warrior


“The greatest warrior is not he who wins every battle. The most excellent warrior is he who wins without fighting.”
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 600 B.C.

I have read The Art of War many times, and you can bet that Vladimir Putin has too. I found the quote above to be the most important maxim in that masterpiece, and I think Putin would agree. And when the “fighting” could potentially lead to the 3rd World War and the extinction of Humanity, then to avoid fighting becomes as important as avoiding defeat, because the 3rd World War is a war no one will win. Once it starts, we all lose. And so far, it is Putin who has prevented the war from starting.

The recent criticism of Vladimir Putin for “betraying” Syria or the Donbass Republics or even Russia itself is as impudent as it is misguided, and it comes from the usual collection of armchair warriors and self-styled pundits who actually seem to think they know more about geopolitics than Vladimir Putin does.

They seem to fail to understand that war requires sacrifices, as well as deception, and that perhaps all may not be exactly as they think it is. They also fail to understand that preventing war sometimes requires distasteful compromises. These self-appointed critics and “strategists” should look at the results of Putin’s work, rather than be confused by their amateur interpretation of how he accomplishes it. And they should keep in mind the fact that Putin’s objectives may not be the same as their own, and that it is always easy to talk when you have no skin in the game.

Let’s start with the recent words of “The Saker”, aka Andrei Raevski, an alleged “Pro-Russian analyst” who is “personally bitterly disappointed” by the nomination of Dmitri Medvedev as Prime Minister. He goes on to quote a comment he read on Youtube – “Putin betrayed the people, we didn’t vote for Medvedev”. While the second part of the comment is technically correct, it is the parliament, not the people, who votes for or against the President’s nominee,  the “Putin betrayed the people” lie is straight off the Strelkov/Suchan/5th column troll farm.
Note that The Saker doesn’t actually say it himself, but by quoting an anonymous comment off Youtube, he does actually say it himself, and then our illustrious analyst goes on to say he is “afraid” it’s going to be a “very widely shared feeling”. As he himself shares it as widely as he can. It is not a feeling shared by those with any sense or any skin in the game, but perhaps among some of the credulous naifs who read and believe his drivel.
There are a number of legitimate explanations for Medvedev’s appointment, but The Saker “doesn’t buy any of them”. Or apparently even understand any of them. He then goes on to claim the appointment pours fuel on the fire of rumors that Putin will cave in on Syria and/or Donbass, even as he pours fuel on the fire of those rumors by spreading them himself.
He claims to be aware (as “we all” are) of “alarmist rumors circulating all over the internet about this for many days”, and goes on to say the nomination will strengthen these “very dangerous” rumors, even as he spreads and strengthens them himself. Is it treachery or idiocy? Either way, it’s anti-Russian propaganda by a White Russian immigrant who lives in the USA, and pretends to support Russia’s battle against US hegemony.
A calm and rational examination of the facts shows the above interpretation of Medvedev’s appointment to be baseless, melodramatic fear-mongering. The fact is, the Prime Minister, whose actual official title is “Chairman of the Government of the Russian Federation”, serves at the pleasure of the President, and can be fired and replaced at the President’s discretion. The President may himself chair meetings of the Cabinet, may give obligatory orders to the PM, and may revoke any act of the government. The term “Prime Minister” is strictly informal and is actually never used in the Russian Constitution, federal laws or official documents.
The President has complete control of the PM. Putin is the immensely popular President, Medvedev is the unpopular PM who Putin appointed and can fire at any time. No need for fear or bitter disappointment. Or abject misinterpretation. What better way could Putin have to keep Medvedev on a short leash than to have him as PM under these conditions?
I am no fan of Medvedev or his oligarch clique, but Putin’s appointing him doesn’t mean that he is either. There is a well known quote that is from the book The Godfather – “Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.” The simple interpretation of this quote is “know your enemy”, but the much more profound meaning is that you don’t want your enemies to know that you are enemies. This vital distinction may be lost on some Russian voters, Youtube commenters and self-styled analysts who think they are qualified to advise and criticize the former KGB Colonel and current President of the Russian Federation, but I am quite certain that Putin himself understands it perfectly. So, only a fool or a liar would say “Putin betrayed Russia” by appointing Medvedev.

Sergey Kurginyan (the only Russian I trust and admire as much as Putin) pointed out that Putin has six years to complete the monumental tasks he has set for Russia, and realistically, he needs the Medvedev Bloc’s help. Their report card comes out two years from now. If they help, they stay, if they don’t, they get booted, all Russia sees it, and Putin sill has four more years to install a new team of oligarch hunters, and to do some hunting himself. And if you haven’t heard of Kurginyan or want to know where he stands on other huge questions facing Russia, check out this clip where he breaks down who Gorbachev really was, and what he was all about. His analysis is cutting. He’s no liberal, no bourgeois reformer.

If Putin did not betray Russia, what about Syria and the Donbass Republics? The quick, simple and obvious answer is that the fact that they still exist proves that he continues to support them and has not betrayed them in any way. The idea that Syria or the Republics could have survived without Putin’s support is laughable, and only an idiot could put forth such a proposition. Yet some do. They say that Putin has “betrayed” Syria by not responding to recent provocations and that Russian forces should have attacked US forces that are illegally in Syria after the US attack in which Russian contractors were killed.

The story about “500 Russians killed” is a lie. There were about 100 soldiers killed by the US air attack, mostly Syrian Army, with about 15 to 20 Wagner contractor/advisers. And unlike the various keyboard commandos who called for the start of WW3 over the incident , I actually know what happened. A friend of mine was there, and I have seen the video. Yes, it was a treacherous and underhanded attack by the US, knowing there were Russians among the Syrian soldiers, but this provocation is not worth risking a real world war over, is it? What kind of imbecile could possibly think it would be?

The same goes for Trump’s impotent and ridiculous missile attacks, and Israel’s as well. Yes, all these attacks were “allowed” by Russia, but Russia told both the US and Israel where they were, and were not, allowed to shoot, and both obeyed the Russian mandate.  The cost of the attacks for the US was far greater than the destruction they imposed on Syria, and the Israelis probably just barely broke even. Enough Pyrrhic victories like these, and the US and Israel will defeat themselves. And Putin will stand aside and allow them to. He will win without fighting.
Of course, the Russians are fighting in Syria, against ISIS and other Western terrorist proxies, and they are winning. The US and Israeli attacks are absolutely meaningless in regards to the final outcome of the war, so why should Putin escalate? Putin and the Russian military have drawn their lines in the sand, and it is clear the US and their allies understand and respect them. If they are foolish enough to cross them, those who now call for war will soon be begging the Russians for peace. Yes, soldiers were killed, but they were not Russian soldiers or Bashar al Assad. And getting killed is a risk every soldier must face. It’s part of the job, and sometimes they must even be sacrificed. That too is part of the job. This is sometimes hard for keyboard commandos and those who have never been soldiers to understand. And they should refrain from commenting on things they don’t understand.

As for Putin’s “betrayal” by inviting Netanyahu to Moscow, yes, a rather disgusting sight considering Israel’s recent actions, but a very shrewd move, not “stupid” or a betrayal.
There’s a difference between bad optics, and bad moves. Bad optics can be a bad move, but there’s much more to reality than optics – much more than meets the eye. This is so basic, the expression itself is currency.
No doubt Netanyahu standing beside Putin made Trump, Poroshenko and Netanyahu nervous. Yes, Russia has again put the S-300 delivery to Syria on hold, but the sale and delivery of S-400’s to Turkey is still on schedule. Think about Erdogan calling for all Muslim countries to unite against Israel.

Erdogan truly is a megalomaniac, with dreams of being a new Salahudin and leading the ME, and a war against Israel makes him exactly that. And I doubt he’s forgotten about the US engineered coup attempt against him, and where Fetullah Gulen lives. But Turkey doesn’t even need the S-400’s. It’s still in NATO, so basically bulletproof from Israel, even from their nukes. Because if Israel gets into a shooting war with Turkey, it invokes Article 5, and either NATO has to go to war against Israel, or NATO falls apart, because if the US and EU NATO members don’t defend Turkey, how can they trust each other?
Either way, Putin wins without fighting. The more you think about it, the more you like it!
The same applies to those who say Putin “betrayed” Donbass. Take my word for it or figure it our for yourself. After four years of war, the Republics still stand.
While we certainly do have our problems, life has gotten better in every measurable way, and continues to, just as it has gotten continually worse in Ukraine. If not for Putin’s support, we would have been attacked and overwhelmed long ago. Putin has said these exact words – “If the Ukraine army overruns Donbass there will be a genocide of ethnic Russian people. We will not allow that.” What do you think he means, “We will not allow that”? I know, the people here know, the Ukrops and US military knows, and so far, they have not been suicidal enough to try it. Putin will never betray Donbass.
I’d bet my life on it. In fact, I do bet my life on it. Millions of us here do. And we know it. We respect and appreciate it. We are still here because he is with us. As long as the Republics exist, we are winning. Time is on our side, and just like NATO, the Kiev junta and Ukrop Nazis will eventually consume themselves. The Republics too, can win without fighting.
There are few men in history, much less alive today, who have the courage, the honor and the true genius of Vladimir Putin. Those who call themselves “pro-Russian” and use the words “Putin” and “betrayed” in the same sentence only prove themselves, without exception, to be either fools, or liars and traitors. Remember the lesson Girkin (“Strelkov”) taught us here in Donbass. A false comrade is a real enemy. As for the fools, they are not just wrong, they’re irrelevant. They blow wind about actions they don’t even understand. The dog barks, and the caravan moves on. What matters is the results. And the results speak for themselves.  Things have gotten better in Syria, Donbass and Russia itself ever since Putin came along, he hasn’t betrayed anybody, and he’s not going anywhere till the job is done.
The job is to protect Russia, and protecting Syria and Donbass does protect Russia. It also prevents World War Three. And preventing World War Three protects us all. So far, Vladimir Putin has done it, and done it well. He is refusing to escalate, minimizing violence as long as his red lines are not crossed. And those lines have not yet been crossed. It is important for those who live under the regimes that make provocations and call for war to do whatever they can to prevent their governments from going too far and crossing those lines. We should all give Vladimir Putin a hand in trying to prevent World War Three. If we win without fighting, we all become most excellent warriors.
« Last Edit: 2018-05-20, 19:45:50 by ronee »

Hero Member

Posts: 2371
Everyman decries immorality
Russell Bentley has a very good point to make. I have been wondering myself what is going on with The Saker lately (he has said he has been struggling with poor health). I have not been able to detect any change in the writing style so it's probable that the latest crop of articles has been written by the same person.. but I wouldn't go as far as Russell in asking "Is it treachery or is it idiocy?" it could well just be personal bias bubbling up. Sometimes you can overextend yourself. Whatever the reasons are I don't agree with The Saker's latest positions.

“The greatest warrior is not he who wins every battle. The most excellent warrior is he who wins without fighting.”
– Sun Tzu, The Art of War, 600 B.C.

The Art Of Fighting Without Fighting


Everyman Standing Order 01: In the Face of Tyranny; Everybody Stands, Nobody Runs.
Everyman Standing Order 02: Everyman is Responsible for Energy and Security.
Everyman Standing Order 03: Everyman knows Timing is Critical in any Movement.
Pages: 1 ... 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 [100]
« previous next »


Home Help Search Login Register
Theme © PopularFX | Based on PFX Ideas! | Scripts from iScript4u 2018-12-11, 22:25:48