The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Philip Giraldi ArchiveBlogview
How the World Ends
Baiting Russia is not good policy
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Russia vs US
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

Last week I attended a foreign policy conference in Washington that featured a number of prominent academics and former government officials who have been highly critical of the way the Bush and Obama Administrations have interacted with the rest of the world. Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago was on a panel and was asked what, in his opinion, has been the most notable foreign policy success and the most significant failure in the past twenty-five years. The success was hard to identify and there was some suggestion that it might be the balancing of relationships in strategically vital Northeast Asia, which “we have not yet screwed up.” If I had been on the panel I would have suggested the Iran nuclear agreement as a plus.

As for the leading foreign policy failure there was an easy answer, “Iraq” which was on everyone in the room’s lips, but Mearsheimer urged one not to be so hasty. In reality the Iraq disaster has killed hundreds of thousands, has cost trillions of dollars and has unleashed serious problems for the Mideast region in general while allowing the rise of ISIS, but in “realistic foreign policy terms” it has not been a catastrophic event for the United States, which had hardly been seriously injured by it apart from financially and in terms of reputation.

Mearsheimer went on to say that, in his opinion, there is a far greater disaster lurking and that is the total mismanagement of the relationship with Russia ever since the downfall of communism. He cited the drive by Washington democracy promoters to push Ukraine into the western economic and political sphere as a major miscalculation as they failed to realize or did not care that what takes place in Kiev was to Moscow a vital interest. To that observation I would add the legacy of the spoliation of Russia’s natural resources carried out by Western carpetbaggers working with local grifters turned oligarchs under Boris Yeltsin, the expansion of NATO to Russia’s doorstep initiated by Bill Clinton, and the interference in Russia’s internal affairs by the U.S. government, to include the Magnitsky Act. There have also been unnecessary slights and insults delivered along the way, to include sanctions on Russian officials and refusal to attend the Sochi Olympics, to cite only two examples.

It should also be noted that much of the negative interaction between Washington and Moscow is driven by the consensus among the western media and the inside the beltway crowd that Russia is again or perhaps is still the enemy du jour. Ironically, the increasingly negative perception of Russia is rarely justified as a reaction in defense of any identifiable serious U.S. interests, not even in the fevered minds of Senator John McCain and his supporting neocon claque. But even though the consequences of U.S. hostility towards Russia can be deadly serious, the Obama Administration is already treating Georgia and Ukraine as if they were de facto members of NATO. Hillary Clinton, who has called Vladimir Putin another Adolf Hitler, has pledged to bring about their admittance into the alliance, which would not in any way make Americans more secure, quite the contrary, as Moscow would surely be forced to react.

A number of speakers observed that while Russia is no longer a superpower in a bipolar system it is nevertheless a major international player, evident most recently in its successful intervention in Syria. Moscow has both nuclear and advanced conventional arsenals that would be able to inflict severe or even fatal damage on the United States if animosity should somehow turn to armed conflict. Given that reality, if the United States has but a single foreign policy imperative it would be to maintain a solid working relationship with Russia but somehow the hubris inspired recalibration of the U.S. role in the world post the Cold War never quite figured that out, opting instead to see Washington as the “decider” anywhere and everywhere in the world, able to use the “greatest military ever seen” to do its thinking for it. This blindness eventually led to a de facto policy of regime change in the Middle East and a turn away from détente with the Russians.

The comments of John Mearsheimer and other speakers became particularly relevant when I returned home and flipped on my computer to discover two news items. First, NATO, with Washington’s blessing, has admitted Montenegro into the alliance. I must confess that I had not thought about Montenegro very much since reading how Jay Gatsby showed narrator Nick Carraway his World War I medal from that country in chapter 4 of The Great Gatsby. But perhaps in a “Lafayette We Are Here” moment to return the favor bestowed on Gatsby, the inclusion of Montenegro now means that under Article 5 of the NATO treaty the United States is obligated to go to war to defend Montenegran territorial integrity, something that few Americans would find comprehensible. Russia, which is directly threatened by the NATO alliance even though NATO claims that that is not the case, protested to no avail.

And the second article was far, far worse. It was in The New York Times, so it must be true: “The United States Justice Department has opened an investigation into state-sponsored doping by dozens of Russia’s top athletes…The United States attorney’s office for the Eastern District of New York is scrutinizing Russian government officials, athletes, coaches, antidoping authorities and anyone who might have benefited unfairly from a doping regimen…Prosecutors are believed to be pursuing conspiracy and fraud charges.”

Yes folks, the United States government, which has long claimed jurisdiction over any and all groups and individuals worldwide who might even implausibly be linked to terrorism is now extending its writ to athletes who take performance enhancing drugs anywhere in the world. Particularly if those athletes are Russians. Having read the article with disbelief I slapped myself in the face a couple of times just to make sure that I wasn’t imagining the whole thing but after the post-concussive vertigo abated there it was still sitting there looking back at me in black and white with a banner headline and a color photo, Justice Department Opens Investigation Into Russian Doping Scandal.

Being somewhat of a skeptic, I looked at the byline, expecting to see Judith Miller of weapons of mass destruction fame, but no it was Rebecca Ruiz. Could it be a nom de plume? I thought I might be on to something so I reread the piece more slowly second time around. How does Washington justify going after the Russkies? The article noted “In their inquiry, United States prosecutors are expected to scrutinize anyone who might have facilitated unclean competition in the United States or used the United States banking system to conduct a doping program.” The article added that some Russian athletes allegedly have run in the Boston Marathon, though they did not win, place or show. If they popped an amphetamine before using their Visa card to dine at Chuck e Cheese when sojourning in Bean Town they are toast, as the expression goes. Likewise for the handful of Russian athletes who have apparently participated in international bobsled and skeleton championships in Lake Placid, N.Y.

And of course there is a Vladimir Putin angle. The Russian sports minister, who has been implicated in the scandal, was appointed by Putin in 2008, so it’s all about Russia and Putin which makes it fair game. FBI investigators and U.S. courts are now prepared to go after Russians living in Russia for alleged crimes that may or may not have occurred in the United States based on the flimsiest of grounds to establish jurisdiction. Since much of the world’s financial dealings transit through American banks in some way or another the whole world becomes vulnerable to unpleasant encounters with the U.S. criminal justice system. If the accused choose to offer no defense to the frivolous prosecutions they will be found guilty in absentia and fined billions of dollars before having their assets seized, as happened recently to the Iranians, who had nothing to do with 9/11 but are nevertheless being hounded to prove themselves innocent.

My point is that the Russians are not exactly failing to notice what is going on. No one but Victoria Nuland and the Kagans actually want a war but Moscow is being backed into a corner with more and more influential Russian voices raised against détente with a Washington that seems to be intent on humiliating Russians at every turn as part of a new project for regime change. Many Russian military leaders have quite plausibly come to believe that the continuous NATO expansion and the stationing of more army units right along the border means that the United States wants war.

Russia’s generals base their perception on what they have very clearly and unambiguously observed. When Russia acts defensively, as it did in Georgia and Ukraine, it is accused of aggressive action, is sanctioned and punished. When the Western powers probe Russian borders with their warships and surveillance aircraft they claim that it is likewise aggression when Moscow scrambles a plane to monitor the activity. Washington in its own warped view is always behaving defensively from the purest of motives and Moscow is always in the wrong. But picture for a moment a reverse scenario to include a Russian missile cruiser lounging just outside the territorial limits off Boston or New York to imagine what the U.S. reaction might be.

Washington’s misguided policy towards Russia under both Republican and Democratic presidents indeed has the potential to become the greatest international catastrophe of all time, as Professor Mearsheimer observed. U.S. provocations and the regular promotion of a false narrative that Russia is both threatening and seeking to recreate the Soviet Union together suggest to that country’s leaders that Washington is an implacable foe. The bellicose posturing inadvertently strengthens the hands of hard line nationalists in Russia while weakening those who seek a formula for accommodation with the West. To be sure, Russia is no innocent in the international one upmanship game but it has been more sinned against than sinned. And the nearly constant animosity directed against Russia by the Obama Administration should be seen as madness as the stakes in the game, a possible nuclear war, are, or should be, unthinkable.

 
278 Comments to "How the World Ends"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @PiltdownMan

    Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?
     
    Either that, or their worldview and plans arise from paranoid belligerent fantasies.

    There appears to be no other explanation that fits the facts.

    , @AC
    Ask Max Shachtman. The neocons are, knowingly or not, working to implement Trotsky's vision of International Socialism - using American might to wage constant war (engendering hatred of the West generally, and America specifically, among the Third World) and redistributing American wealth to an endless string of Third World cesspits via horrifically bad 'free trade' deals.
    , @chris
    the way I see it, they want to topple Putin. They are probably already working with some Oligarchs and some figure heads there to prepare a revolution. This time, the Trotskiites don't think they can loose.
    , @Yarko the Great
    It is simple - treat them like they have in order to make them capitulate to the western world order which many believe originates in American government or corporations, but many others believe is a more transnational group, e.g. Bilderberg group, Davos group, and so on. The point is - Russia is not part of the "in-group" and they want them to be. End of story. They believe Russia will not do anything drastic. Watch the video when Tulsi Gabbard grilled military leaders about the possibility of nuclear war with Russia a few months back if you want to see their attitude - basically they do not believe their provocations will lead to anything serious.
    , @Anonymous
    Here is the video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW72MAcQkGw
    , @Kiza
    Yours is actually a highly valid question, because at least most Americans would have no idea. I could provide my reading.

    Firstly and most importantly, Russia is a grand prize unlike China. Especially if the Global Warming is real (forget about the get-rich word "Anthropological"). Most of the Siberian rivers flow to the North and get blocked by ice at the exit into the North Sea. This makes most of the land into marshes. Once unblocked, the marshes drain out and you have amazingly fertile never planted, nutrient rich, unpolluted land for GMO free natural agriculture. But agriculture does not even come close to the mineral and oil riches of the area. Therefore, splitting Russia into the European and Asian part is exceptionally attractive to the Rulers To Be of the World.

    Secondly, Russia is the target of convenience. The US and the West are in deep debt, normally all budgets would have to be cut, especially the unproductive military. Soviet Union has been an old punching bag for the Western MIC, it was very easy to re-target propaganda from the SU onto its left-over - Russia. The weakness of this contrived narrative is that, except for nuclear weapons, Russia is a military par of just UK. The Western MIC has to stretch its MSM to the absolute limits of credulity by claiming Russian aggression and expansionism, with what? Anybody who would bother to look at military or economic statistics would laugh at such claims.

    Thirdly, like most European countries, the Russians have had enough of Jewish financial shenanigans in their country and were not very friendly to the fathers and mothers of many a necon. The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews, but they are a much easier target than the Germans, plus see number one above - the gain.

    , @Yarko the Great
    Years ago when David Rockefeller openly spoke about "a new world order," and later when George Bush the first also mentioned it - what they were talking about wasn't some conspiracy theory about a one world government or some other weird agenda bandied about online - no, what they meant was a world where one system governs the entire world. Like what we have in the relationship between most of Europe, the most of the Americas, most of Asia, Down under and Oceania, and to a good degree Africa and a lesser degree the middle east. Most of those countries work within the same banking, policing, economic (and so on) system to a great deal. The "new world order" was envisioned after WW2 when it was seen that a major reordering of the world was possible which would make the world a safer and more economically advantageous place for the wealthy.

    The major obstacles today are Russia, China, and countries who have closer relations with them than the rest of world. Latin America has become a problem in recent years but not a huge problem except for Venezuela. So yeah, the "new world order" is a real thing, it is not a fever dream made up by less than realistic people who take it way too far and see bizarre conspiracies to change the culture and religion of the world by "mind control" and so on. It is in reality a purely economic and policing issue - they want everyone on the same page, i.e. follow the same rules. In reality this is not ever going to work completely for many reasons, the main one being that too many disagreements at the higher levels of power will always cause problems for a workable model to be achieved. And also many at the highest level of power will always want a safe haven away from a world cooperation of policing, i.e. where all countries agree to the same ruling system of cooperation. At the least they want the big powers to be part of the system.

    , @Realist
    The neocons get money from the military industrial complex.
    , @alexander
    It is a really good question .

    Here are some possible answers.

    The Neocons belligerent stewardship of our Nation(over the past fifteen years) has led to an unprecedented and calamitous national debt of over 20 trillion dollars.

    This is an obscene, unconscionable amount of money drained from our nations purse, for which our lawmakers have simply no clue as to how to replenish.

    No clue.

    Nearly all of this debt, accumulated on the backs of all Americans, can be directly attributed to the massive spending sprees on illegal wars of aggression in the middle east,the hoax-y Global War on Terror, and the big bank bail out.

    Furthermore, the amount of "war profiteering" from these illegal engagements, has engorged the belligerent few at the top with trillions of taxpayers wealth, at the expense of the rest of us.

    The proper course of action, to rectify the situation(,and for our nation to sustain itself as a free Republic),would be to hold accountable all those whose fraud enabled this massive hemorrhaging of wealth and claw back the profits from such criminality, to the American people.

    The Neocons are quite aware of this.

    And they are loathe it may happen.

    Rather than have the national discourse center around the heinous catastrophes their policies have engendered , ...a discourse which would lead to a demand for accountability, and criminal arrests.

    They need a scapegoat.... a "deflector" from their sins.

    And Putin is their guy.

    So in answer to your question, the first rationale is "deflection".


    The second rationale is "impediment".

    Russia represents the single most powerful "check", on wanton Neocon aggression, in the entire world.

    The continuous Neocon propaganda, that besieges the American public on a daily basis,and has rendered our nation nearly insolvent in the process, does not fly so far in Russia.

    So , Russia's acute awareness of Neocon fraud and criminality makes it an "impediment" to the Neocons rapacious desire for almost Nazi-like, world domination.

    The third rationale is "jealously".

    Russia never suffered either in reputation, or in the purse, from the folly of the Neocons "imbecilic" Iraq war.

    As the prestige of the US took a huge hit on the world stage, so too did Russia's stock begin to rise .

    The Sochi Olympics may have marked an extraordinary moment of ascendancy for the nation of Russia.

    And the Neocons became quite Jealous.

    The whole world could now look to Russia, (not the US) as having successfully emerged from the cold war era, as a nation of some real integrity, as yet un-succumbed to the malevolent desires for conquest and war.

    The US, under Neocon tutelage, is globally frowned upon today. Nobody likes a bully and a bully is what we became.Everybody knows it, although few will say it.

    The fourth rationale is "addiction".

    Addiction to "war" and addiction to "war profiteering"

    The humongous military security apparatus the Neocons have created (over the last decade and a half),is like a giant multi-headed beast that needs to be fed.

    Nobody who has benefited from these blossoming industries of war and terror wishes for the "gravy train" to end.

    So, to sustain its addiction to war , the "war machine" needs an "enemy".

    And Russia is the most logical enemy of choice.



    These, in short, are four possible answers to your question,

    Deflection.

    Impediment.

    Jealousy.

    Addiction.

    Do those answers help make sense of it to you ?
    , @Mark Green
    The neocon hatred of Putin's Russia is tied to Russia's steadfast alliance with Iran and Syria. Israel wants that alliance shattered.

    Israel is still technically at war with Syria, and Israel has no intention of returning to Syria the land (Golan Heights) that Israel grabbed from Syria in its preemptive Six Day War (1967).

    As for Iran, the relations between Tel Aviv and Tehran could not be worse. And Russia not only trades with both Syria and Iran, but Moscow supplies these two anti-Zionist countries with all the weapons (and training) necessary to repel an Israeli attack. Russia and Israel are in the midst of a very cold war. This is why Washington is now in a cold war with Russia--to fortify Israel.

    Thus Washington has worked hard to topple Syria's Assad--even if it means funding ISIS and/or Al Queda. This is due to the simple fact that, in Official Washington, Israeli interests invariably trump all other concerns.

    And Israel wants Syria, Iran and their patron, Russia, weakened--if not ruined.

    These assorted, crypto-Zionist objectives are what propelled Washington into its wars against Iraq and Libya. Those weak, distant nations posed no threat to US security, but they did potentially threaten Zionist aspirations. And it's Israeli security/hegemony that most animates Washington's intervention reflex. So Washington attacked.

    US 'nation-building' is often a euphemism for Zionist-friendly nation-destroying.

    Thus, to keep Israel safe, Deep State operatives throughout Washington remain committed to toppling Syria's Assad.

    Assad must be replaced with either 1) a more compliant regime vis-a-vis Israel, or 2) a nation forever divided and forever weak, like today's post-Saddam Iraq.

    These objectives explain why Russia and Iran (along with Syria) are targeted for marginalization, sanction, and isolation. 'Regime change' (political transformation by whatever means necessary) is a core neocon objective. It seeks to target all nations that threaten Israel.

    Thus, US Mideast policies now reflect the aspirations of the Zionist mega-donors (Adelson, Sabin), our two corrupt major Parties, countless Israel-centric think tanks and other NGOs, and the dominant, pro-Zionist international media.

    What has this cabal of undue influence managed to accomplish?

    Israel's foes have become America's foes.

    This is a stunning achievement.

    And right now it is Putin's Russia that is standing in the way of Syria's 'transformation'.

    Putin, remember, managed to keep US forces at bay when it looked as if Obama was about to initiate a major bombing campaign there to "protect the (anti-Assad) rebels". For his daring diplomacy, Putin deserves honor. He not only saved US lives, but helped avert a potentially major confrontation involving US and Russian forces. But instead of respect, Putin (in America) is reviled.

    Why?

    Putin frustrated Israel's long-sought regime-change for Syria.

    Assad's Syria--along with Iran, Russia and even Lebanon-- are far too independent for the comfort of global Zionists. Thus, Washington is on the offense against these recalcitrant nations.

    In Official Washington, all anti-Israel states must be sanctioned, embargoed, or bombed. This is how Zio-Washington rolls.

    , @Andrei Martyanov

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.
     
    It is a metaphysical question also. It is also a military one. Russia can generate alternative civilizational ideas. You may observe this process right now. Militarily, well it is a long story but US is not capable of winning conventionally (I underscore--conventionally) in Russia's vicinity--this is not the fact which sits well with many in D.C. And then, of course, comes the question of how US gained the position it currently is in.
    , @JoaoAlfaiate
    Most neocons are Jews (Max Boot, the Kagans, Kristol, Brooks and so on) and the Jews are eternal victims. And they never forget or forgive. Putin is the new Czar and it's payback time for Czarist anti-Semitism. And, of course, Russia is allied with Assad, an enemy of the Zionist enterprise. So the fact that baiting Russia is contrary to the interests of the vast majority of US citizens means nothing. Ask yourself whether defending Israeli occupiers and usurpers, no matter how outrageous their conduct, is in the best interests of the Untied States. But somehow that's what we do. I rest my case.
    , @ISmellBagels
    Uh, maybe the yid 3000 year old dream of world domination? Seems pretty clear.
    , @mr. meener
    because the Bolshevik jews declared war on Russia 100 years ago as they did on Germany. after killing tens of millions they want more blood
    , @Bill Jones
    Have a look at the Makinder Doctrine
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Geographical_Pivot_of_History
    , @Anonymous
    Because Israel sees Russia as a hindrance to its freedom of action in the Middle East.

    Israel has been patching up ISIS fighters in their military hospitals and there is at least one case of an Israeli 'special advisor' having been found embedded within an ISIS unit.

    I thought this was a very revealing TV moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0YM_iLwXB0
    , @Duglarri
    Why do the neocons hate Russia? Israel.

    Russia is a very, very old enemy of Israel. Russia supplied all the weapons that Arabs used to fight Israel for decades.

    I had an email exchange a few years ago with a Canadian newspaper columnist who flatly argued that Canada should be at war with Syria. And this was before the Arab Spring. Why on earth, I asked. For what possible reason? The reason was all the firing over the border from Syria against Israeli farms. And again I had to ask, what, you mean the cross-border shelling that ended in 1953?

    Israelis have long memories, and will never forgive Russia for having supplied all those tanks that Egypt used in 1973. Destroying Russia is old business for them.

    Israel also has a lingering concern that at some point, some time, Russian nuclear weapons might just possibly be pointed at them.

    For their part, Neocons will hold these same objectives, only more so, and more emotionally, in their inevitable habit of being more Israeli than Israelis.

    For the Neocons, it's a matter of defending Israel.

    And payback.
    , @Philip Owen


    Russia bears its, smaller, share of responsibility for the mess. Since the 2004 elections, Putin has taken a highly nationalist, even xenophobic stance, originally to keep the nationalist Liberal Democrats at bay. He's also been in office too long. He may be a personally moderate man but he has an immoderately grand view of the significance of Russia, as if it depended on any thing other than oil and nukes. The oil cycle is 30 years long, if it ever recovers - electric cars are arriving. African villages electrify with solar. Russia's manufacturing economy struggles to be in the top 20. The Rouble has disappeared from the top 20 trading currencies now Ukraine no longer accepts it. So, crying Wolf! about NATO was a great way to rally support in 2004 but actually, while it diverted some of the right wing vote from the Liberal Democrats, it also fed the fascists of whom there are many in Russia. The neocons noticed this.

    But mostly, the neocons - including the Clintons, Blair, Shimon Perez, Carl Bildt and many other less prominent politicans and journalists were ready to be paid by the Ukrainian oligarchs to spread anti Russian views which people like McCain were ready to hear.

    And as Mr Meyer says, the ghost of Rober McNamara has its influence on the nuclear element. Without the disaster of George Bush's presidency, Russia might yet have been on the edge of the EU with a moderate nuclear arsenal. The world won't recover from Bush for another 10 years.
    , @cynic
    The Chosen Ones exert themselves to get the rest of us to destroy each other.
    , @AmericaFirstNow
    I am no supporter of Alex Jones but what was conveyed about Putin in following youtube is most concerning as NATO encroaches on Russia’s borders which is going to result in WW3:

    PUTIN SENDS DIRE WARNING TO HUMANITY – Just a Matter of Time & The Sheeple Are Asleep:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnqyQW6EFeg&feature=youtu.be

    Result of US pushing Zionist PNAC ‘neocon agenda’ vs Russia:

    http://america-hijacked.com/2014/02/24/us-has-neocon-agenda-in-ukraine-russia-analyst/


    Neocons: Seeking War to the End of the World:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/19/seeking-war-to-the-end-of-the-world/

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pgiraldi/how-the-world-ends/#comment-1429300
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. All this is best explained by the ghost of Robert McNamara:

    “we came that close to nuclear war!”

    Read More
  3. …has not been a catastrophic event for the United States, which had hardly been seriously injured by it apart from financially and in terms of reputation…

    That’s some “hardly.”

    Read More
  4. @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    Either that, or their worldview and plans arise from paranoid belligerent fantasies.

    There appears to be no other explanation that fits the facts.

    Read More
  5. Wally says: • Website

    One big reason is the Russian resistance to the take down of Syria’s Assad that Israel is demanding.

    Without a doubt ‘neo-cons’ are code words for slimy Israel First Zionists.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Grate Deign
    Not disputing, just asking: Where and when did Israel demand the takedown of Assad?
    , @Incredulously yours,
    Exaaaaactly. 1917 wasn't good enough for 'em....
  6. AC says:
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    Ask Max Shachtman. The neocons are, knowingly or not, working to implement Trotsky’s vision of International Socialism – using American might to wage constant war (engendering hatred of the West generally, and America specifically, among the Third World) and redistributing American wealth to an endless string of Third World cesspits via horrifically bad ‘free trade’ deals.

    Read More
  7. Neocons (Jews) have a tremendous animosity toward the Russians.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Correct. A fact which explains where 99% of the enmity toward Putin lies. After 70+ years, Jews are still pissed at Adolph for putting a stop to their looting of Germany, so rest assured that they're just getting started on Putin for doing the same for Russia. Apparently, there's few things a person can do to earn the undying hatred of Jews than deprive them of the freedom to loot.
  8. Anoni says:

    The neo-cons only favor sovereignty and nationalism for one country, Israel, as they have shown over many years. They seem to particularly dislike anything like nationalism for European or quai European countries.

    Read More
  9. Kiza says:

    Dear Mr Giraldi, it is interesting how Hillary’s busting of the State Department secrecy takes forever to investigate and all these mitigating circumstances are popping up in the MSM. At the same time, there are sufficient legal resources to investigate the Russians for alleged doping since they popped-out a Visa or MC whilst in the US. But the World has nothing to worry about since nobody is above the fairly applied US laws. The MSM are used both for suppression of the real news and for the creation of false narratives.

    To add a bit of info about Montenegro. This statelet was much more important to the Russians that it is to the US. Thus, swallowing Montenegro into NATO is purely to spite the Russians. Montenegro has very advantageous still water Boka harbor, but the Russians could never supply it when the US controls the entrance to the Adriatic Sea, the Strait of Otranto from its both sides (Albanian and Italian).

    Therefore, this is not another strategic story like ABM Defense etc. Over the past 20 years, the new Russian mid-tier well-offs have purchased beachfront properties on the Montenegrin coast. Montenegro is the warmest Mediterranean seaside relatively close and relatively friendly to Russia, much warmer than any Black Sea beachside. Montenegro was becoming close to a dream-retirement location for the upper-middle and lower-top Russians. Then US/NATO decided that Russia should be denied this small and sunny domain and they turned the leading Montenegrin mafia kingpin, its Prime Minister Milo Djukanovic, to their side. Milo is the king of the cigarette smuggling for the whole of the Balkans and Southern Europe, his tribe’s fortune counted close to a billion dollars. It is this fortune which keeps the tribe in power in the statelet. Controlling the smuggling also requires eliminating competition and uncooperative police and judiciary. It is the same old: he may be a son-of-a-bitch but he is our son-of-a-bitch. The arrangement with NATO will be highly unstable, not only because it is another unnecessary poke in the Russian eye then because the dominant ethnic group in Montenegro are the pro-Russian Serbs (more than half). Therefore, Montenegro could be back in the news again soon, in a bad way.

    Read More
  10. chris says:
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    the way I see it, they want to topple Putin. They are probably already working with some Oligarchs and some figure heads there to prepare a revolution. This time, the Trotskiites don’t think they can loose.

    Read More
  11. @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    It is simple – treat them like they have in order to make them capitulate to the western world order which many believe originates in American government or corporations, but many others believe is a more transnational group, e.g. Bilderberg group, Davos group, and so on. The point is – Russia is not part of the “in-group” and they want them to be. End of story. They believe Russia will not do anything drastic. Watch the video when Tulsi Gabbard grilled military leaders about the possibility of nuclear war with Russia a few months back if you want to see their attitude – basically they do not believe their provocations will lead to anything serious.

    Read More
  12. Anonymous says: • Website • Disclaimer
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.
    Read More
  13. Kiza says:
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    Yours is actually a highly valid question, because at least most Americans would have no idea. I could provide my reading.

    Firstly and most importantly, Russia is a grand prize unlike China. Especially if the Global Warming is real (forget about the get-rich word “Anthropological”). Most of the Siberian rivers flow to the North and get blocked by ice at the exit into the North Sea. This makes most of the land into marshes. Once unblocked, the marshes drain out and you have amazingly fertile never planted, nutrient rich, unpolluted land for GMO free natural agriculture. But agriculture does not even come close to the mineral and oil riches of the area. Therefore, splitting Russia into the European and Asian part is exceptionally attractive to the Rulers To Be of the World.

    Secondly, Russia is the target of convenience. The US and the West are in deep debt, normally all budgets would have to be cut, especially the unproductive military. Soviet Union has been an old punching bag for the Western MIC, it was very easy to re-target propaganda from the SU onto its left-over – Russia. The weakness of this contrived narrative is that, except for nuclear weapons, Russia is a military par of just UK. The Western MIC has to stretch its MSM to the absolute limits of credulity by claiming Russian aggression and expansionism, with what? Anybody who would bother to look at military or economic statistics would laugh at such claims.

    Thirdly, like most European countries, the Russians have had enough of Jewish financial shenanigans in their country and were not very friendly to the fathers and mothers of many a necon. The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews, but they are a much easier target than the Germans, plus see number one above – the gain.

    Read More
    • Agree: Carroll Price
    • Replies: @Seraphim
    @the Russians have had enough of Jewish financial shenanigans in their country and were not very friendly to the fathers and mothers of many a necon.

    And that's the main (if not the only) reason.
    , @Avery
    {The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews}

    Not only that, but Russians have zero guilt feelings towards Jews, unlike Western Europeans (and Germans of course): unlike them, who collaborated with Nazis in the roundup and mass murder of Jews, the Red Army saved European Jewry from total extermination by Nazis. Russians know what they did, and are absolutely immune to the guilt trip.

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties.

    Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading USSR, Europe would be German occupied to this day, and not a single European Jew would be left alive there.

    , @Duglarri
    Hi Kiza- Northern areas of Russia fertile if the temperature goes up? No, unfortunately. It's all muskeg, which is basically a thin layer of moss over ice. Since there's never been vegetation there there is in fact no soil at all. Signed: Canada
  14. @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    Years ago when David Rockefeller openly spoke about “a new world order,” and later when George Bush the first also mentioned it – what they were talking about wasn’t some conspiracy theory about a one world government or some other weird agenda bandied about online – no, what they meant was a world where one system governs the entire world. Like what we have in the relationship between most of Europe, the most of the Americas, most of Asia, Down under and Oceania, and to a good degree Africa and a lesser degree the middle east. Most of those countries work within the same banking, policing, economic (and so on) system to a great deal. The “new world order” was envisioned after WW2 when it was seen that a major reordering of the world was possible which would make the world a safer and more economically advantageous place for the wealthy.

    The major obstacles today are Russia, China, and countries who have closer relations with them than the rest of world. Latin America has become a problem in recent years but not a huge problem except for Venezuela. So yeah, the “new world order” is a real thing, it is not a fever dream made up by less than realistic people who take it way too far and see bizarre conspiracies to change the culture and religion of the world by “mind control” and so on. It is in reality a purely economic and policing issue – they want everyone on the same page, i.e. follow the same rules. In reality this is not ever going to work completely for many reasons, the main one being that too many disagreements at the higher levels of power will always cause problems for a workable model to be achieved. And also many at the highest level of power will always want a safe haven away from a world cooperation of policing, i.e. where all countries agree to the same ruling system of cooperation. At the least they want the big powers to be part of the system.

    Read More
  15. Realist says:
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    The neocons get money from the military industrial complex.

    Read More
  16. alexander says:
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    It is a really good question .

    Here are some possible answers.

    The Neocons belligerent stewardship of our Nation(over the past fifteen years) has led to an unprecedented and calamitous national debt of over 20 trillion dollars.

    This is an obscene, unconscionable amount of money drained from our nations purse, for which our lawmakers have simply no clue as to how to replenish.

    No clue.

    Nearly all of this debt, accumulated on the backs of all Americans, can be directly attributed to the massive spending sprees on illegal wars of aggression in the middle east,the hoax-y Global War on Terror, and the big bank bail out.

    Furthermore, the amount of “war profiteering” from these illegal engagements, has engorged the belligerent few at the top with trillions of taxpayers wealth, at the expense of the rest of us.

    The proper course of action, to rectify the situation(,and for our nation to sustain itself as a free Republic),would be to hold accountable all those whose fraud enabled this massive hemorrhaging of wealth and claw back the profits from such criminality, to the American people.

    The Neocons are quite aware of this.

    And they are loathe it may happen.

    Rather than have the national discourse center around the heinous catastrophes their policies have engendered , …a discourse which would lead to a demand for accountability, and criminal arrests.

    They need a scapegoat…. a “deflector” from their sins.

    And Putin is their guy.

    So in answer to your question, the first rationale is “deflection”.

    The second rationale is “impediment”.

    Russia represents the single most powerful “check”, on wanton Neocon aggression, in the entire world.

    The continuous Neocon propaganda, that besieges the American public on a daily basis,and has rendered our nation nearly insolvent in the process, does not fly so far in Russia.

    So , Russia’s acute awareness of Neocon fraud and criminality makes it an “impediment” to the Neocons rapacious desire for almost Nazi-like, world domination.

    The third rationale is “jealously”.

    Russia never suffered either in reputation, or in the purse, from the folly of the Neocons “imbecilic” Iraq war.

    As the prestige of the US took a huge hit on the world stage, so too did Russia’s stock begin to rise .

    The Sochi Olympics may have marked an extraordinary moment of ascendancy for the nation of Russia.

    And the Neocons became quite Jealous.

    The whole world could now look to Russia, (not the US) as having successfully emerged from the cold war era, as a nation of some real integrity, as yet un-succumbed to the malevolent desires for conquest and war.

    The US, under Neocon tutelage, is globally frowned upon today. Nobody likes a bully and a bully is what we became.Everybody knows it, although few will say it.

    The fourth rationale is “addiction”.

    Addiction to “war” and addiction to “war profiteering”

    The humongous military security apparatus the Neocons have created (over the last decade and a half),is like a giant multi-headed beast that needs to be fed.

    Nobody who has benefited from these blossoming industries of war and terror wishes for the “gravy train” to end.

    So, to sustain its addiction to war , the “war machine” needs an “enemy”.

    And Russia is the most logical enemy of choice.

    These, in short, are four possible answers to your question,

    Deflection.

    Impediment.

    Jealousy.

    Addiction.

    Do those answers help make sense of it to you ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @noizpots
    I agree these are excellent rationales for the animosity towards Russia. I further believe there is another reason, largely unexplored, which essentially highlights the "pole-flipping" nature of the conflict. The Russian nation has, since the fall of communism, experienced a great awakening in its Christian faith. Meanwhile the U.S. has by and large fallen away; witness the cultural and legal developments of recent years in our land. And, I must point out, the Neocon worldview which dominates the MSM and political spheres, is largely a zio-centric one. P.C. aside, right or wrong, I believe this fundamental clash is one of the main roots of the conflict.
    , @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Yes, thank you and to all the others who replied.
  17. Greg Bacon says: • Website

    The USA and Israel are very much alike in this way, they both keep their citizens scared and obedient with tales of impending doom unless the military keeps expanding and citizens get behind the government’s portrayal of the latest villain and hiss on demand.

    Russia isn’t Iraq or Libya, they have a potent military, including electronic warfare weapons the Pentagon is still trying to figure out, as in the USS Donald Cook case.

    It’s amazing how easy it is for DC hacks and the non-existent ‘Fourth Estate’ to keep Americans clamoring for endless wars and bigger Pentagon budgets, even though one of the results, the falling apart of our infrastructure, is right in front of our noses.

    Read More
  18. Mark Green says: • Website
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    The neocon hatred of Putin’s Russia is tied to Russia’s steadfast alliance with Iran and Syria. Israel wants that alliance shattered.

    Israel is still technically at war with Syria, and Israel has no intention of returning to Syria the land (Golan Heights) that Israel grabbed from Syria in its preemptive Six Day War (1967).

    As for Iran, the relations between Tel Aviv and Tehran could not be worse. And Russia not only trades with both Syria and Iran, but Moscow supplies these two anti-Zionist countries with all the weapons (and training) necessary to repel an Israeli attack. Russia and Israel are in the midst of a very cold war. This is why Washington is now in a cold war with Russia–to fortify Israel.

    Thus Washington has worked hard to topple Syria’s Assad–even if it means funding ISIS and/or Al Queda. This is due to the simple fact that, in Official Washington, Israeli interests invariably trump all other concerns.

    And Israel wants Syria, Iran and their patron, Russia, weakened–if not ruined.

    These assorted, crypto-Zionist objectives are what propelled Washington into its wars against Iraq and Libya. Those weak, distant nations posed no threat to US security, but they did potentially threaten Zionist aspirations. And it’s Israeli security/hegemony that most animates Washington’s intervention reflex. So Washington attacked.

    US ‘nation-building’ is often a euphemism for Zionist-friendly nation-destroying.

    Thus, to keep Israel safe, Deep State operatives throughout Washington remain committed to toppling Syria’s Assad.

    Assad must be replaced with either 1) a more compliant regime vis-a-vis Israel, or 2) a nation forever divided and forever weak, like today’s post-Saddam Iraq.

    These objectives explain why Russia and Iran (along with Syria) are targeted for marginalization, sanction, and isolation. ‘Regime change’ (political transformation by whatever means necessary) is a core neocon objective. It seeks to target all nations that threaten Israel.

    Thus, US Mideast policies now reflect the aspirations of the Zionist mega-donors (Adelson, Sabin), our two corrupt major Parties, countless Israel-centric think tanks and other NGOs, and the dominant, pro-Zionist international media.

    What has this cabal of undue influence managed to accomplish?

    Israel’s foes have become America’s foes.

    This is a stunning achievement.

    And right now it is Putin’s Russia that is standing in the way of Syria’s ‘transformation’.

    Putin, remember, managed to keep US forces at bay when it looked as if Obama was about to initiate a major bombing campaign there to “protect the (anti-Assad) rebels”. For his daring diplomacy, Putin deserves honor. He not only saved US lives, but helped avert a potentially major confrontation involving US and Russian forces. But instead of respect, Putin (in America) is reviled.

    Why?

    Putin frustrated Israel’s long-sought regime-change for Syria.

    Assad’s Syria–along with Iran, Russia and even Lebanon– are far too independent for the comfort of global Zionists. Thus, Washington is on the offense against these recalcitrant nations.

    In Official Washington, all anti-Israel states must be sanctioned, embargoed, or bombed. This is how Zio-Washington rolls.

    Read More
    • Agree: Max Payne
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "The neocon hatred of Putin’s Russia is tied to Russia’s steadfast alliance with Iran and Syria... The US ‘nation-building’ is often a euphemism for Zionist-friendly nation-destroying.... Israel’s foes have become America’s foes."

    True. Tragically so for many decent Jews. The Zionist lunatics are in cahoot with the major war profiteers, both manufacturers and finances, none of whom is loaded with morality.
    Even if the US and RF leaders are not prone to push the proverbial button, the climate of mistrust could become the humankind undoing.
    , @chris
    Very good points, Marc.

    Your arguments also lead to the point that an additional reason for the vicious and unprovoked attack on Russia is also going to be the fact that for the mayhem they still have planned for the Middle East, they need to neutralize anyone like Russia coming in and playing "good cop" and reaping all the benefits of playing that hand.
    , @Orville H. Larson
    "Assad's Syria--along with Iran, Russia and even Lebanon--are far too independent for the comfort of global Zionists. Thus, Washington is on the offense against these recalcitrant nations.

    "In Official Washington, all anti-Israel states must be sanctioned, embargoed, or bombed. This is how Zio-Washington rolls."

    Need we say more?
    , @Anonymous
    GRATER EMPIRES HAVE BEEN TUMBUL DOWN, AND AMERICA IS ALREADY ON THE GROUND THE ONLY THING THAT KEEPS IT BREATHING IS THE MONOPOLY WORTHLESS PAPER MONEY, AND THAT WILL CONTINUE FOR AS LONG AS WEAK SLAVE NATIONS CONTINUE TO ACCEPT THAT AS AN INTERNATIONAL MEANS OF MONETAY TRANCITIONS GO, BUT THE JEWS ALREADY KNOW THAT, THAT IS WHY THEY ARE PUSHING AS HARD AS THEY HAVE BEEN DOING, KNOWING THAT ON THE DAILY BASIS MORE AND MORE GOYMS ARE WAKEING UP TO THE SATANIC PROPAGANDA AND LIES THAT THEY BEEN SUCKED INTO FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

    THAT IS WHY THEY HATE TRUMP BECAUSE THE SATANIC PARASITIC JEW DOES NOT OWN HIM AND THIS COULD BE THE LAST TIME THAT AMERICA'S NATIVES HAVE TO UNLEACH THEIR HATE TOWARDS THESE BASTARDS ONCE AND FOR ALL ERASE THEM FROM PLANET EARTH.

    AS A CHRISTIAN PRESIDENT PUTIN IS NOT AFRAID OF DYING HOWEVER HIS RESPONSIBILITY AS A CHRISTIAN IS TO USE ALL MEANS OF PEACEFULL DIPLOMACY TO SHOW THE WORLD THAT IS AMERICA THE ONE THAT HAS CREATED ALL THE CHAOS AND DESTRUCTION ON SO MANY NATIONS, AND EVEN RIGHT NOW THERE ARE SEVERAL GOVERNMENT AMERICAN CRIMINALS ON A ORDER FOR THEIR APREHENTION STARED BY RUSSIA FOR CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY, I JUST HOPE THAT PUTIN WILL SOON FIND THE WAY TO EXTRACT THOSE CRIMINALS OUT AMERICA AND JUDGE THEM WITH PUNISHMENT LIKE THE ZIONIST JEWS DID TO SADDAM HUSSAIN AND TO THE LIBIAN PRESIDENT THE WORLD WOULD REJOYCE IF THAT WAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE THEY DIE AT HOME.

    THE JEWS LIKE SATAN CAN ONLY MANIPULATE PEOPLE THROUGH FEAR, BUT A CHRISTIAN WHO KNOWS WHERE HE OR SHE WILL GO AFTER PHISICAL DEATH IS NOT AFRAID AND PUTIN AS A CHRISTIAN IS NOT AFRAID OF ALL THE JEWS PROPAGANDA PUTIN WILL RESPOND IN LIKE MANNER IN THE EVENT THAT THESE PSYCHOS DESIDED TO GO NUCLEAR, THERE WON'T BE A PLACE THEY CAN HIDE THEY WOULD PERISH WITH THE REST OF US
  19. Avery says:

    {Can someone please explain…..}

    In her day the British Empire controlled vast regions of the globe, and involved itself everywhere. The mantle has been taken by its successor, US.

    For a couple centuries Anglo-Americans – first UK now US – have been coveting the vast natural resources of Russia. Plus, they have wanted control of the Eurasian heartland. (lookup Mackinder’s Heartland Theory).

    USSR (which was mostly Russia) was a spoiler in Anglo-American empire’s desire to run the world, so it was successfully undermined and broken up. The process continues with RF.
    Russia interferes with Neocons’ grand plans, so it is targeted for “death by a thousand cuts”.

    For example: Neocons’ plan to dismember Syria and parcel it out to various members of their gang was thwarted by the successful Russian AF intervention. Neocons hate it.

    The playbook is the same: keep baiting Russia, so it overspends on its military, like USSR, and bankrupts itself. Neocons don’t want a suicidal nuke war with Russia, so they are trying by other means. Attacks on the ruble; oil price crash; economic warfare; and creeping NATO closer and closer to Russia, hoping Russia overreacts.

    Again: the grand plan is to breakup Russia so it can no longer oppose the Anglo-American empire, and as a bonus, its immense natural riches will be open to theft and exploitation by Western interests. (Some of the best, richest agricultural land of Ukraine was “sold” to Western interests for pennies (stolen), after Ukraine was taken over by Neocons and their agents).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    One more thing.

    {.... creeping NATO closer and closer to Russia,...}

    This is the most ingenious and diabolical mechanism.
    It's win-win for US&UK. There is no downside.

    US and UK are far away from Russia and absolutely safe (other than nuke war).
    But the hapless little idiot countries near Russia they recruit into NATO or give them the notion that US/NATO will back them - get screwed.

    For example: Republic of Georgia under traitor and Neocon agent Saakashvili was goaded by Neocons to prick the Bear. When the Bear slapped little Misha, US and Israeli advisers hightailed it outta there, and Georgia was crushed. As a bonus, it permanently lost a couple of it's disputed regions: Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

    If the fit hits the shan, all those little NATO "members" like Lithuania, Estonia, Montenegro.... etc will be crushed. They are nothing but bait. But they are too stupid to realize it.
    , @annamaria
    "Neocons don’t want a suicidal nuke war with Russia, so they are trying by other means. Attacks on the ruble; oil price crash; economic warfare; and creeping NATO closer and closer to Russia, hoping Russia overreacts."

    It does not matter anymore if they do not want the "suicidal nuke war with Russia" - the ziocons have been busy with creating the conditions for the nuke war.
  20. Avery says:
    @Avery
    {Can someone please explain.....}

    In her day the British Empire controlled vast regions of the globe, and involved itself everywhere. The mantle has been taken by its successor, US.

    For a couple centuries Anglo-Americans - first UK now US - have been coveting the vast natural resources of Russia. Plus, they have wanted control of the Eurasian heartland. (lookup Mackinder's Heartland Theory).

    USSR (which was mostly Russia) was a spoiler in Anglo-American empire's desire to run the world, so it was successfully undermined and broken up. The process continues with RF.
    Russia interferes with Neocons' grand plans, so it is targeted for "death by a thousand cuts".

    For example: Neocons' plan to dismember Syria and parcel it out to various members of their gang was thwarted by the successful Russian AF intervention. Neocons hate it.

    The playbook is the same: keep baiting Russia, so it overspends on its military, like USSR, and bankrupts itself. Neocons don't want a suicidal nuke war with Russia, so they are trying by other means. Attacks on the ruble; oil price crash; economic warfare; and creeping NATO closer and closer to Russia, hoping Russia overreacts.

    Again: the grand plan is to breakup Russia so it can no longer oppose the Anglo-American empire, and as a bonus, its immense natural riches will be open to theft and exploitation by Western interests. (Some of the best, richest agricultural land of Ukraine was "sold" to Western interests for pennies (stolen), after Ukraine was taken over by Neocons and their agents).

    One more thing.

    {…. creeping NATO closer and closer to Russia,…}

    This is the most ingenious and diabolical mechanism.
    It’s win-win for US&UK. There is no downside.

    US and UK are far away from Russia and absolutely safe (other than nuke war).
    But the hapless little idiot countries near Russia they recruit into NATO or give them the notion that US/NATO will back them – get screwed.

    For example: Republic of Georgia under traitor and Neocon agent Saakashvili was goaded by Neocons to prick the Bear. When the Bear slapped little Misha, US and Israeli advisers hightailed it outta there, and Georgia was crushed. As a bonus, it permanently lost a couple of it’s disputed regions: Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

    If the fit hits the shan, all those little NATO “members” like Lithuania, Estonia, Montenegro…. etc will be crushed. They are nothing but bait. But they are too stupid to realize it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    "This is the most ingenious and diabolical mechanism.
    It’s win-win for US&UK. There is no downside".

    Well, yes and no. It is truly, diabolically (in the most literal of senses) ingenious. And there is no downside apart from the significant probability of the entire human species being wiped out.

    The trouble, it seems to me, is that once diabolically clever people have had a certain measure of success, they become so conceited that they literally cannot imagine that any of their schemes might fail. Updating an old (and profoundly true) saying, one might suggest that the road to Hell is paved with ingenious and diabolical mechanisms that appear to have no downside.
  21. 1) All roads lead to Rome … all money belongs to Washington.
    2) The Sovs used to station trawlers off the US coasts to fish for all sorts of things, and we used to go out and buzz them … that seems to have gone down the memory hole.
    3) We seem to forget how relatively stable and safe a bi-polar world was.

    Read More
  22. Kiza says:

    Another important point that very few citizens understand is that if a nuclear war starts, every country with nuclear weapons will launch at some target, under use it or lose it. The US nuclear missile targeting list from the sixties (from the time of Cuban missile crisis) included targets in both USSR and China, although these two countries were killing each other’s border guards at the time, how friendly they were. This was revealed by a retired US nuclear missile forces officer (USAF) who was stationed in Japan. They received a spurious order to launch and he was shocked to discover Chinese cities in the target list given.

    Return to present and consider that now that Russia and China are strategic partners, would not the US aim for targets in China as well. Then consider that China probably has targets in India and India has targets in Pakistan. Get the picture?

    There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war, if the US launches a strike, everybody else will too: Russia, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, UK, France. It will be one big global fireworks to celebrate the end of human kind. The dinosaurs went away without such a goodbye party.

    Now I do not believe that even war-mad/crazy Hillary wants a global nuclear war, but she may play the game of chicken – I am too crazy to oppose, we will all die if I do not get my way. Would you rather lose Syria or we all die? Would you rather lose Siberia or we all die? And even if she does not play such stupid game of chicken, when two armies are face-to-face now that the US is establishing divisions and anti-missile bases on the Russia’s border, there is always a chance of someone getting carried away, a mentally disturbed individual, someone under the influence accidentally starting a conflict leading to the big fireworks. Because those who play with matches, end up burning their house. There is no place for the US military at the Russia’s border or in the South China Sea.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    You may be right about Hillary refraining from using the big nukes, and resorting instead to the game of chicken.

    But I think Hillary (if elected) might well use those tactical mini-nukes against Iran, for Israel, somewhere in the next decade.

    I , for one, would not be surprised if she did .

    Not surprised at all.
    , @Bayan
    Scary. All this for what?
  23. alexander says:
    @Kiza
    Another important point that very few citizens understand is that if a nuclear war starts, every country with nuclear weapons will launch at some target, under use it or lose it. The US nuclear missile targeting list from the sixties (from the time of Cuban missile crisis) included targets in both USSR and China, although these two countries were killing each other's border guards at the time, how friendly they were. This was revealed by a retired US nuclear missile forces officer (USAF) who was stationed in Japan. They received a spurious order to launch and he was shocked to discover Chinese cities in the target list given.

    Return to present and consider that now that Russia and China are strategic partners, would not the US aim for targets in China as well. Then consider that China probably has targets in India and India has targets in Pakistan. Get the picture?

    There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war, if the US launches a strike, everybody else will too: Russia, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, UK, France. It will be one big global fireworks to celebrate the end of human kind. The dinosaurs went away without such a goodbye party.

    Now I do not believe that even war-mad/crazy Hillary wants a global nuclear war, but she may play the game of chicken - I am too crazy to oppose, we will all die if I do not get my way. Would you rather lose Syria or we all die? Would you rather lose Siberia or we all die? And even if she does not play such stupid game of chicken, when two armies are face-to-face now that the US is establishing divisions and anti-missile bases on the Russia's border, there is always a chance of someone getting carried away, a mentally disturbed individual, someone under the influence accidentally starting a conflict leading to the big fireworks. Because those who play with matches, end up burning their house. There is no place for the US military at the Russia's border or in the South China Sea.

    You may be right about Hillary refraining from using the big nukes, and resorting instead to the game of chicken.

    But I think Hillary (if elected) might well use those tactical mini-nukes against Iran, for Israel, somewhere in the next decade.

    I , for one, would not be surprised if she did .

    Not surprised at all.

    Read More
  24. Tom Welsh says:

    Everything that is wrong about the USA’s foreign policy (and its view of the world in general) is implicit in the single word “exceptional”. In claiming that the USA is exceptional, unique and indispensable, American leaders are essentially declaring that Americans are the latest master race. Apart from the Jews, who still claim to be God’s chosen people (presumably to the exclusion of everyone else), that leaves Americans as the only people in the world today who are actively and energetically saying that they are better, cleverer, more efficient, more powerful, and fairer than everyone else.

    I don’t think I really need waste time pointing out what has happened to all the previous “master races”, do I?

    Read More
    • Replies: @tarl
    Well Jews consider themselves the master race and chosen so by God... This implies?
  25. Tom Welsh says:
    @Avery
    One more thing.

    {.... creeping NATO closer and closer to Russia,...}

    This is the most ingenious and diabolical mechanism.
    It's win-win for US&UK. There is no downside.

    US and UK are far away from Russia and absolutely safe (other than nuke war).
    But the hapless little idiot countries near Russia they recruit into NATO or give them the notion that US/NATO will back them - get screwed.

    For example: Republic of Georgia under traitor and Neocon agent Saakashvili was goaded by Neocons to prick the Bear. When the Bear slapped little Misha, US and Israeli advisers hightailed it outta there, and Georgia was crushed. As a bonus, it permanently lost a couple of it's disputed regions: Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

    If the fit hits the shan, all those little NATO "members" like Lithuania, Estonia, Montenegro.... etc will be crushed. They are nothing but bait. But they are too stupid to realize it.

    “This is the most ingenious and diabolical mechanism.
    It’s win-win for US&UK. There is no downside”.

    Well, yes and no. It is truly, diabolically (in the most literal of senses) ingenious. And there is no downside apart from the significant probability of the entire human species being wiped out.

    The trouble, it seems to me, is that once diabolically clever people have had a certain measure of success, they become so conceited that they literally cannot imagine that any of their schemes might fail. Updating an old (and profoundly true) saying, one might suggest that the road to Hell is paved with ingenious and diabolical mechanisms that appear to have no downside.

    Read More
  26. The idea that NATO is a threat to Russia is utterly risible. The military capability of most of NATO has atrophied beyond immediate redemption.

    What Putin has done in Ukraine is not defensive, but offensive. It was planned long before Maidan took place was being abetted by Yanukovich who was getting set to turn the country over to Putin. Anyone seriously thinking Putin is acting defensively hasn’t been paying any attention to what Putin himself has been saying. They are no better than Stalin’s “Useful idiots.”

    Putin has said, point blank, that every thing the USSR held is Russia. Anyone that has no idea what that means for those in Russia’s “near abroad,” is beyond help.

    Read More
  27. Seraphim says:
    @Kiza
    Yours is actually a highly valid question, because at least most Americans would have no idea. I could provide my reading.

    Firstly and most importantly, Russia is a grand prize unlike China. Especially if the Global Warming is real (forget about the get-rich word "Anthropological"). Most of the Siberian rivers flow to the North and get blocked by ice at the exit into the North Sea. This makes most of the land into marshes. Once unblocked, the marshes drain out and you have amazingly fertile never planted, nutrient rich, unpolluted land for GMO free natural agriculture. But agriculture does not even come close to the mineral and oil riches of the area. Therefore, splitting Russia into the European and Asian part is exceptionally attractive to the Rulers To Be of the World.

    Secondly, Russia is the target of convenience. The US and the West are in deep debt, normally all budgets would have to be cut, especially the unproductive military. Soviet Union has been an old punching bag for the Western MIC, it was very easy to re-target propaganda from the SU onto its left-over - Russia. The weakness of this contrived narrative is that, except for nuclear weapons, Russia is a military par of just UK. The Western MIC has to stretch its MSM to the absolute limits of credulity by claiming Russian aggression and expansionism, with what? Anybody who would bother to look at military or economic statistics would laugh at such claims.

    Thirdly, like most European countries, the Russians have had enough of Jewish financial shenanigans in their country and were not very friendly to the fathers and mothers of many a necon. The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews, but they are a much easier target than the Germans, plus see number one above - the gain.

    @the Russians have had enough of Jewish financial shenanigans in their country and were not very friendly to the fathers and mothers of many a necon.

    And that’s the main (if not the only) reason.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "[Russian] were not very friendly to the fathers and mothers of many neocons."
    The facts are unequivocally show that the fathers and mothers of many ziocons used to be among influential bosses in the various fields of the Soviet state. Take a note that the grossest Israeli racists are from the former Soviet Union. Exhibit one: Avigdor Lieberman, a Moldovan felon.
  28. Durruti says:

    Russia is showing no signs of resistance. their 5th column government is in Full Retreat mode.

    As with America, their President is Netenyahoo.

    China is suffering the same fate.

    Todays news is bleak:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-36368346

    As Arthur Koestler wrote, and I paraphrase:

    They (the Russians) are advancing from defeat to defeat.

    Resistance is the Only Road to crush the imperialist Zionist New World Order.

    For the Democratic Republics!

    Durruti

    Read More
  29. noizpots says:
    @alexander
    It is a really good question .

    Here are some possible answers.

    The Neocons belligerent stewardship of our Nation(over the past fifteen years) has led to an unprecedented and calamitous national debt of over 20 trillion dollars.

    This is an obscene, unconscionable amount of money drained from our nations purse, for which our lawmakers have simply no clue as to how to replenish.

    No clue.

    Nearly all of this debt, accumulated on the backs of all Americans, can be directly attributed to the massive spending sprees on illegal wars of aggression in the middle east,the hoax-y Global War on Terror, and the big bank bail out.

    Furthermore, the amount of "war profiteering" from these illegal engagements, has engorged the belligerent few at the top with trillions of taxpayers wealth, at the expense of the rest of us.

    The proper course of action, to rectify the situation(,and for our nation to sustain itself as a free Republic),would be to hold accountable all those whose fraud enabled this massive hemorrhaging of wealth and claw back the profits from such criminality, to the American people.

    The Neocons are quite aware of this.

    And they are loathe it may happen.

    Rather than have the national discourse center around the heinous catastrophes their policies have engendered , ...a discourse which would lead to a demand for accountability, and criminal arrests.

    They need a scapegoat.... a "deflector" from their sins.

    And Putin is their guy.

    So in answer to your question, the first rationale is "deflection".


    The second rationale is "impediment".

    Russia represents the single most powerful "check", on wanton Neocon aggression, in the entire world.

    The continuous Neocon propaganda, that besieges the American public on a daily basis,and has rendered our nation nearly insolvent in the process, does not fly so far in Russia.

    So , Russia's acute awareness of Neocon fraud and criminality makes it an "impediment" to the Neocons rapacious desire for almost Nazi-like, world domination.

    The third rationale is "jealously".

    Russia never suffered either in reputation, or in the purse, from the folly of the Neocons "imbecilic" Iraq war.

    As the prestige of the US took a huge hit on the world stage, so too did Russia's stock begin to rise .

    The Sochi Olympics may have marked an extraordinary moment of ascendancy for the nation of Russia.

    And the Neocons became quite Jealous.

    The whole world could now look to Russia, (not the US) as having successfully emerged from the cold war era, as a nation of some real integrity, as yet un-succumbed to the malevolent desires for conquest and war.

    The US, under Neocon tutelage, is globally frowned upon today. Nobody likes a bully and a bully is what we became.Everybody knows it, although few will say it.

    The fourth rationale is "addiction".

    Addiction to "war" and addiction to "war profiteering"

    The humongous military security apparatus the Neocons have created (over the last decade and a half),is like a giant multi-headed beast that needs to be fed.

    Nobody who has benefited from these blossoming industries of war and terror wishes for the "gravy train" to end.

    So, to sustain its addiction to war , the "war machine" needs an "enemy".

    And Russia is the most logical enemy of choice.



    These, in short, are four possible answers to your question,

    Deflection.

    Impediment.

    Jealousy.

    Addiction.

    Do those answers help make sense of it to you ?

    I agree these are excellent rationales for the animosity towards Russia. I further believe there is another reason, largely unexplored, which essentially highlights the “pole-flipping” nature of the conflict. The Russian nation has, since the fall of communism, experienced a great awakening in its Christian faith. Meanwhile the U.S. has by and large fallen away; witness the cultural and legal developments of recent years in our land. And, I must point out, the Neocon worldview which dominates the MSM and political spheres, is largely a zio-centric one. P.C. aside, right or wrong, I believe this fundamental clash is one of the main roots of the conflict.

    Read More
  30. Corvinus says:
    @AC
    Ask Max Shachtman. The neocons are, knowingly or not, working to implement Trotsky's vision of International Socialism - using American might to wage constant war (engendering hatred of the West generally, and America specifically, among the Third World) and redistributing American wealth to an endless string of Third World cesspits via horrifically bad 'free trade' deals.

    Any sources to back up your assertion?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AmericanaCON
    I think it is his conclusion about the events that is now unfolding. My view is that the politicians of the West have different ideas for the future. Firstly, they want a world without borders were capital, products and people can move freely. This is beneficiary for corporations, banks and the very mobile elites. This is why they forcefully oppose the national state and nationalism. In general I think this is what people see. It is extremely obvious. Secondly, many seem supportive of a greater Israel. However, this is more an issue in United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany than in the European Union. The political elite in smaller countries seem to care less for this issue. Thirdly, politicians tend to do whatever their donors, corporate media and lobbyists tell them to do. This is where things get confusing as different actors have different ideas and want different things. If we look at what governments does;

    China is very concerned about shipping goods to the West. However, they have very little concern about liberal or neo-conservative projects. There has been some heavy lobbying to convince China to adopt the Global Warming narrative. However, the Chinese government continues to reject such narrative when it conflicts with their economic interest. Washington and Brussels has been pushed for “Liberal Democracy” in China for two decades but it simply does not stick. They don’t want it as they see Liberal Democracy as a Western invention they don’t need. It is simply bad for business the Chinese government argues. You see similar pattern in the rest of Eastern Asia including fairly westernized societies such as South Korea and Japan.

    The Eastern Asian governments are always on their toes to get trade deals with United States (and in lesser degree with European Union) but they will not sacrifice anything. Instead they play on the Western corporate greed and they do it very successfully. In the constantly burning Middle East the wealthy Gulf States has their agenda which often is about fighting ideological turf wars over religion, economics and ideology. What Washington or Brussels says is nothing they are deeply concerned about. Their lobbyist see to that things go smoothly in Washington and Brussels. When it comes to Africa and Latin-America they cannot simply function. Most of them are flawed democracies or dictatorships. Hence, they might vote with or against the West depending who is picking up their bills. Brussels have spent a lot of time to get The Eastern Europeans (and the Russians) to follow in line but their mentality is similar to the Asians. Their leaders will not do anything if they are does not receive a pay check.

    Look at the Visegrad nations (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) – they simply do not feel threatened by some liberal hack in the European Commission who tells them that they have admit migrants from third world countries. The European Union can only control countries like Romania which are in desperately in need for loans. The Western elites are losing ground rapidly. There is a new political dawn which goes against globalization and a liberal world order. This is the consequence of the insanity of liberalism have negatively hurt all economic sectors and the very life the people of the West and the small people across the world. I think Marine Le Pen was quite right when she said that we are heading towards a symbolic civil war in the West – between them who argues for globalization and those who argues for the national-state. I think the former will win.
  31. @alexander
    It is a really good question .

    Here are some possible answers.

    The Neocons belligerent stewardship of our Nation(over the past fifteen years) has led to an unprecedented and calamitous national debt of over 20 trillion dollars.

    This is an obscene, unconscionable amount of money drained from our nations purse, for which our lawmakers have simply no clue as to how to replenish.

    No clue.

    Nearly all of this debt, accumulated on the backs of all Americans, can be directly attributed to the massive spending sprees on illegal wars of aggression in the middle east,the hoax-y Global War on Terror, and the big bank bail out.

    Furthermore, the amount of "war profiteering" from these illegal engagements, has engorged the belligerent few at the top with trillions of taxpayers wealth, at the expense of the rest of us.

    The proper course of action, to rectify the situation(,and for our nation to sustain itself as a free Republic),would be to hold accountable all those whose fraud enabled this massive hemorrhaging of wealth and claw back the profits from such criminality, to the American people.

    The Neocons are quite aware of this.

    And they are loathe it may happen.

    Rather than have the national discourse center around the heinous catastrophes their policies have engendered , ...a discourse which would lead to a demand for accountability, and criminal arrests.

    They need a scapegoat.... a "deflector" from their sins.

    And Putin is their guy.

    So in answer to your question, the first rationale is "deflection".


    The second rationale is "impediment".

    Russia represents the single most powerful "check", on wanton Neocon aggression, in the entire world.

    The continuous Neocon propaganda, that besieges the American public on a daily basis,and has rendered our nation nearly insolvent in the process, does not fly so far in Russia.

    So , Russia's acute awareness of Neocon fraud and criminality makes it an "impediment" to the Neocons rapacious desire for almost Nazi-like, world domination.

    The third rationale is "jealously".

    Russia never suffered either in reputation, or in the purse, from the folly of the Neocons "imbecilic" Iraq war.

    As the prestige of the US took a huge hit on the world stage, so too did Russia's stock begin to rise .

    The Sochi Olympics may have marked an extraordinary moment of ascendancy for the nation of Russia.

    And the Neocons became quite Jealous.

    The whole world could now look to Russia, (not the US) as having successfully emerged from the cold war era, as a nation of some real integrity, as yet un-succumbed to the malevolent desires for conquest and war.

    The US, under Neocon tutelage, is globally frowned upon today. Nobody likes a bully and a bully is what we became.Everybody knows it, although few will say it.

    The fourth rationale is "addiction".

    Addiction to "war" and addiction to "war profiteering"

    The humongous military security apparatus the Neocons have created (over the last decade and a half),is like a giant multi-headed beast that needs to be fed.

    Nobody who has benefited from these blossoming industries of war and terror wishes for the "gravy train" to end.

    So, to sustain its addiction to war , the "war machine" needs an "enemy".

    And Russia is the most logical enemy of choice.



    These, in short, are four possible answers to your question,

    Deflection.

    Impediment.

    Jealousy.

    Addiction.

    Do those answers help make sense of it to you ?

    Yes, thank you and to all the others who replied.

    Read More
  32. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website

    American “academe” and elites always had a problem with the sense of scale and proportion when speaking about USSR/Russia. Mearsheimer is no exception. As Bryan MacDonald smartly observed, these elites suffer from an acute case of Russophrenia–a condition where the sufferer believes Russia is both about to collapse, and take over the world. No cure to this condition is expected because exceptionalism is an incurable disease.

    A number of speakers observed that while Russia is no longer a superpower in a bipolar system it is nevertheless a major international player, evident most recently in its successful intervention in Syria. Moscow has both nuclear and advanced conventional arsenals that would be able to inflict severe or even fatal damage on the United States if animosity should somehow turn to armed conflict.

    I guess this is a definition of superpower (whatever that means nowadays).

    Read More
  33. Avery says:
    @Kiza
    Yours is actually a highly valid question, because at least most Americans would have no idea. I could provide my reading.

    Firstly and most importantly, Russia is a grand prize unlike China. Especially if the Global Warming is real (forget about the get-rich word "Anthropological"). Most of the Siberian rivers flow to the North and get blocked by ice at the exit into the North Sea. This makes most of the land into marshes. Once unblocked, the marshes drain out and you have amazingly fertile never planted, nutrient rich, unpolluted land for GMO free natural agriculture. But agriculture does not even come close to the mineral and oil riches of the area. Therefore, splitting Russia into the European and Asian part is exceptionally attractive to the Rulers To Be of the World.

    Secondly, Russia is the target of convenience. The US and the West are in deep debt, normally all budgets would have to be cut, especially the unproductive military. Soviet Union has been an old punching bag for the Western MIC, it was very easy to re-target propaganda from the SU onto its left-over - Russia. The weakness of this contrived narrative is that, except for nuclear weapons, Russia is a military par of just UK. The Western MIC has to stretch its MSM to the absolute limits of credulity by claiming Russian aggression and expansionism, with what? Anybody who would bother to look at military or economic statistics would laugh at such claims.

    Thirdly, like most European countries, the Russians have had enough of Jewish financial shenanigans in their country and were not very friendly to the fathers and mothers of many a necon. The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews, but they are a much easier target than the Germans, plus see number one above - the gain.

    {The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews}

    Not only that, but Russians have zero guilt feelings towards Jews, unlike Western Europeans (and Germans of course): unlike them, who collaborated with Nazis in the roundup and mass murder of Jews, the Red Army saved European Jewry from total extermination by Nazis. Russians know what they did, and are absolutely immune to the guilt trip.

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties.

    Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading USSR, Europe would be German occupied to this day, and not a single European Jew would be left alive there.

    Read More
    • Agree: Sam Shama, Kiza
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Are you going to get to the bad part soon?
    , @Max Payne
    Perhaps not so sinister.

    They all would have been deported to Palestine:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement
    , @mr. meener
    avery you purposely left out the fact that jewish Bolsheviks killed 60 million russians
    , @Anonymous
    slippery slope
    , @Carroll Price
    100% pure Zionist propaganda. According to post-war census records, along with 4 million survivors collecting free money from a victimized, brow-beaten world, Jews suffered no greater loss of life than any other minority group, and probably far less.

    http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001RrIkD0cyz4YK1erNqijZcCD1cLUZ5Kxx6sw7mxQE0AADkaYk4aCfUn8CTC08zPGtwamDyIphhyQwXxzfzUGMRGTiTj8RCIIjm0IUarIGreS4ybXGkDgk5XUAkpJMIk07zGDhZy6N5zdlkNGEnhBxwd-niS8Lms5HbRGuuDmY6uWuPwgSdKefHNsTRWMn34fwKpUrcrBGas4uz0XkJfc_Fw==&c=xyTIzv9okmwq4oS3EpC85tIIcDPOhJVQlVX-lNZB-XIRPiT99e9Nug==&ch=2Ms7Pu-JkPgCCGk_h2G6l_4usrOHj7jlMH1OSf1G7FWzP7b7QnZcZQ==
  34. Why should we be making nice-nice with Vlad and Mother Russia? I can think of 2700 reasons why–each nuclear tipped and mostly pointed towards us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {I can think of 2700 reasons why–each nuclear tipped }

    Closer to 8,000.

    https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat
  35. annamaria says:
    @Mark Green
    The neocon hatred of Putin's Russia is tied to Russia's steadfast alliance with Iran and Syria. Israel wants that alliance shattered.

    Israel is still technically at war with Syria, and Israel has no intention of returning to Syria the land (Golan Heights) that Israel grabbed from Syria in its preemptive Six Day War (1967).

    As for Iran, the relations between Tel Aviv and Tehran could not be worse. And Russia not only trades with both Syria and Iran, but Moscow supplies these two anti-Zionist countries with all the weapons (and training) necessary to repel an Israeli attack. Russia and Israel are in the midst of a very cold war. This is why Washington is now in a cold war with Russia--to fortify Israel.

    Thus Washington has worked hard to topple Syria's Assad--even if it means funding ISIS and/or Al Queda. This is due to the simple fact that, in Official Washington, Israeli interests invariably trump all other concerns.

    And Israel wants Syria, Iran and their patron, Russia, weakened--if not ruined.

    These assorted, crypto-Zionist objectives are what propelled Washington into its wars against Iraq and Libya. Those weak, distant nations posed no threat to US security, but they did potentially threaten Zionist aspirations. And it's Israeli security/hegemony that most animates Washington's intervention reflex. So Washington attacked.

    US 'nation-building' is often a euphemism for Zionist-friendly nation-destroying.

    Thus, to keep Israel safe, Deep State operatives throughout Washington remain committed to toppling Syria's Assad.

    Assad must be replaced with either 1) a more compliant regime vis-a-vis Israel, or 2) a nation forever divided and forever weak, like today's post-Saddam Iraq.

    These objectives explain why Russia and Iran (along with Syria) are targeted for marginalization, sanction, and isolation. 'Regime change' (political transformation by whatever means necessary) is a core neocon objective. It seeks to target all nations that threaten Israel.

    Thus, US Mideast policies now reflect the aspirations of the Zionist mega-donors (Adelson, Sabin), our two corrupt major Parties, countless Israel-centric think tanks and other NGOs, and the dominant, pro-Zionist international media.

    What has this cabal of undue influence managed to accomplish?

    Israel's foes have become America's foes.

    This is a stunning achievement.

    And right now it is Putin's Russia that is standing in the way of Syria's 'transformation'.

    Putin, remember, managed to keep US forces at bay when it looked as if Obama was about to initiate a major bombing campaign there to "protect the (anti-Assad) rebels". For his daring diplomacy, Putin deserves honor. He not only saved US lives, but helped avert a potentially major confrontation involving US and Russian forces. But instead of respect, Putin (in America) is reviled.

    Why?

    Putin frustrated Israel's long-sought regime-change for Syria.

    Assad's Syria--along with Iran, Russia and even Lebanon-- are far too independent for the comfort of global Zionists. Thus, Washington is on the offense against these recalcitrant nations.

    In Official Washington, all anti-Israel states must be sanctioned, embargoed, or bombed. This is how Zio-Washington rolls.

    “The neocon hatred of Putin’s Russia is tied to Russia’s steadfast alliance with Iran and Syria… The US ‘nation-building’ is often a euphemism for Zionist-friendly nation-destroying…. Israel’s foes have become America’s foes.”

    True. Tragically so for many decent Jews. The Zionist lunatics are in cahoot with the major war profiteers, both manufacturers and finances, none of whom is loaded with morality.
    Even if the US and RF leaders are not prone to push the proverbial button, the climate of mistrust could become the humankind undoing.

    Read More
  36. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    It is a metaphysical question also. It is also a military one. Russia can generate alternative civilizational ideas. You may observe this process right now. Militarily, well it is a long story but US is not capable of winning conventionally (I underscore–conventionally) in Russia’s vicinity–this is not the fact which sits well with many in D.C. And then, of course, comes the question of how US gained the position it currently is in.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    I agree with your observation re: the sense of scale amongst American academic elites.

    While Nuland's version of delenda est Carthago may assume the shape of smallish 'hot' battles [very unlikely to end in full conflagration], the decisive one in this Punic drama is financial [and digital]. China understands this, and basically persuaded Iran to sign on to a liveable deal, while assuring itself a major seat at the Dealer's table.

    Trouble is, the fall of Carthage also sowed the seeds of decay for Rome.

    , @SolontoCroesus
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSv1lRIrLrc

    made me cry, so proud
  37. annamaria says:
    @Avery
    {Can someone please explain.....}

    In her day the British Empire controlled vast regions of the globe, and involved itself everywhere. The mantle has been taken by its successor, US.

    For a couple centuries Anglo-Americans - first UK now US - have been coveting the vast natural resources of Russia. Plus, they have wanted control of the Eurasian heartland. (lookup Mackinder's Heartland Theory).

    USSR (which was mostly Russia) was a spoiler in Anglo-American empire's desire to run the world, so it was successfully undermined and broken up. The process continues with RF.
    Russia interferes with Neocons' grand plans, so it is targeted for "death by a thousand cuts".

    For example: Neocons' plan to dismember Syria and parcel it out to various members of their gang was thwarted by the successful Russian AF intervention. Neocons hate it.

    The playbook is the same: keep baiting Russia, so it overspends on its military, like USSR, and bankrupts itself. Neocons don't want a suicidal nuke war with Russia, so they are trying by other means. Attacks on the ruble; oil price crash; economic warfare; and creeping NATO closer and closer to Russia, hoping Russia overreacts.

    Again: the grand plan is to breakup Russia so it can no longer oppose the Anglo-American empire, and as a bonus, its immense natural riches will be open to theft and exploitation by Western interests. (Some of the best, richest agricultural land of Ukraine was "sold" to Western interests for pennies (stolen), after Ukraine was taken over by Neocons and their agents).

    “Neocons don’t want a suicidal nuke war with Russia, so they are trying by other means. Attacks on the ruble; oil price crash; economic warfare; and creeping NATO closer and closer to Russia, hoping Russia overreacts.”

    It does not matter anymore if they do not want the “suicidal nuke war with Russia” – the ziocons have been busy with creating the conditions for the nuke war.

    Read More
  38. annamaria says:
    @Seraphim
    @the Russians have had enough of Jewish financial shenanigans in their country and were not very friendly to the fathers and mothers of many a necon.

    And that's the main (if not the only) reason.

    “[Russian] were not very friendly to the fathers and mothers of many neocons.”
    The facts are unequivocally show that the fathers and mothers of many ziocons used to be among influential bosses in the various fields of the Soviet state. Take a note that the grossest Israeli racists are from the former Soviet Union. Exhibit one: Avigdor Lieberman, a Moldovan felon.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    that the fathers and mothers of many ziocons used to be among influential bosses in the various fields of the Soviet state
     
    Stalin purged many of them.
  39. Avery says:
    @Connecticut Famer
    Why should we be making nice-nice with Vlad and Mother Russia? I can think of 2700 reasons why--each nuclear tipped and mostly pointed towards us.

    {I can think of 2700 reasons why–each nuclear tipped }

    Closer to 8,000.

    https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

    Read More
    • Replies: @Connecticut Famer
    Thanks for the correction. I had actually meant to writer "7700" so, point taken.
  40. macilrae says:

    As a stateswoman Hillary was a midget – under full control – and if she is installed as president then those neocons will have an even freer reign than they had under GWB (which is not to say that he personally could take any credit).

    I can add one more reason for US hostility to Russia: a cosy relationship between them would be bad for Israel which now can play the one off against the other and so avoid their concerted pressure to settle with the Palestinians. For the same reason, the relationship with China should be maintained at arm’s length.

    The degree to which Israel’s obsessive occupation of Palestine has indirectly affected every single one of us is just staggering – think of 9/11, think of Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, Libya and of course Syria. Look at the resulting $20 trillion national debt and ask who’s paying for all that in blood and treasure? This was all in huge part enabled by the neocons.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Very well articulated and thoughtful analysis, Macilrae.

    Very well articulated , indeed.

    And it sure is "staggering" how affected we all are.

    It is almost beyond staggering....it's "obscene".

    The idea the United States is nearly "insolvent" today...

    so that Israel can complete its"extermination"of Palestine.

    The idea that our bill of rights has been eviscerated,....

    so that Israel can complete its "extermination" of Palestine.

    The idea that our entire Free Republic has been transformed into a brutal totalitarian police state.........

    so that Israel can complete its "extermination" of Palestine.

    The idea that perhaps more than three million wholly innocent , decent people have been murdered.....

    So that Israel can complete its "extermination" of Palestine..

    The idea that there are now over 59 million refugees from war-torn middle east regions..

    so that Israel can complete its "extermination " of Palestine.

    The idea that we all may well go to hell in a hand basket from nuclear annihilation...

    so that Israel can complete its "extermination" of Palestine..

    . is quite a "staggering" revelation..


    A staggering "revelation" indeed.


    But if this is NOT the case.......and it might not be....

    .then show me Israel's "plan for peace"

    Where is it ?

  41. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @annamaria
    "[Russian] were not very friendly to the fathers and mothers of many neocons."
    The facts are unequivocally show that the fathers and mothers of many ziocons used to be among influential bosses in the various fields of the Soviet state. Take a note that the grossest Israeli racists are from the former Soviet Union. Exhibit one: Avigdor Lieberman, a Moldovan felon.

    that the fathers and mothers of many ziocons used to be among influential bosses in the various fields of the Soviet state

    Stalin purged many of them.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    In case you are not aware, Stalin (Jugashvilli) was Georgian (similar to the current ruler of Odessa, the good boy Saakishvilli). Stalin was rather ethnicity-blind when eliminating the best and brightest and independent-minded in the Soviet Union.
    As for the alleged plight of Soviet Jewery, it would be interesting to see the relevant statistics, such as the percentage of Jews on the leading position in industries and academia. Judging from the percentage of Jewish billionaires among the so-called "new Russians," Soviet Jews had plenty of opportunities to get great education and then get access to the key positions in the industries, academy, and government. Perhaps it was the incongruence between the many announcement of the supposedly vicious anti-semitism in the Soviet Union and the actual state of affairs, which made Solzhenitsyn book about the history of Jewish people in Russia ( "Two Hundred Years Together) unpublishable in the United States. After this documentary was published in Russian, Solzhenitsyn became demonized for being politically incorrect and shunned by all large publishing houses in the English-speaking West.
  42. anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I like the thinking behind saying that the slaughterhouse we created in Iraq didn’t ‘seriously injure’ the US. Although it cost many billions well, just print some more money since apparently it’s limitless. For our dead and disabled they got their medals, survivor’s benefits, plastic surgery, prostheses and disability payments; now go away. As for the actual residents of the areas we’ve touched down in there’s been life changing devastation; hundreds of thousands dead, homes and livelihoods destroyed, millions transformed into desperate, pauperized refugees. Everywhere the US goes the Grim Reaper follows. But if it’s not playing out in the streets of America then it doesn’t matter. I don’t see any Americans, aside from a relatively small number, actually show any concern for the misery we’ve unleashed on smaller, weaker nations. They’re lesser, inferior people who probably had it coming anyway is the thinking when they bother to think at all; injured dog stories garner more attention. What can be done with such an apathetic, indifferent public?
    The anti-Putin, anti-Russian propaganda machine is in high gear 24/7, cranking it out. One has to hand it to them, they certainly cover all bases. This drive towards confrontation and war puzzles people since much of it seems to be reckless and irrational. Is there some inner locomotive pushing all this regardless of whether we have Bush the moral cretin or the wondrous Nobel Peace Prize winner as president? Is it just the stupidity of the groupthink of supposedly smart people? Thanatos? Whatever it is it needs to be curbed in some way lest we all be dragged into disaster.

    Read More
    • Agree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @alexander
    Its a good comment you just made.

    I am not sure the American public is as apathetic to the massive suffering we have caused to people who never attacked us, rather the media functions as both a cloaking device to the horrors of our barbarism, and as an insidious, malevolent and subliminal "instructor" as to who we should and should not care about.

    This alone stands as the most grotesque aspect of the Neocon dissemination apparatus, some how they have the RIGHT to teach us whose lives are more important than others.

    Unbelievable.

    Yet another example of this fatuousness of evil, smug hubris, and fraudulent exceptionalism of our contemptible "elite".

    What a joke.
    , @Bill Jones
    The number of Iraqi dead is somewhere north of 2.3 million.
  43. @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    Most neocons are Jews (Max Boot, the Kagans, Kristol, Brooks and so on) and the Jews are eternal victims. And they never forget or forgive. Putin is the new Czar and it’s payback time for Czarist anti-Semitism. And, of course, Russia is allied with Assad, an enemy of the Zionist enterprise. So the fact that baiting Russia is contrary to the interests of the vast majority of US citizens means nothing. Ask yourself whether defending Israeli occupiers and usurpers, no matter how outrageous their conduct, is in the best interests of the Untied States. But somehow that’s what we do. I rest my case.

    Read More
  44. War for Blair Mountain [AKA "Groovy Battle for Blair Mountain"] says:

    I suppose when the Old Farting Lesbian and Violent Psychopathic Serial Rapist emerge from their concrete bunker after the nuclear exchange with Conservative Orthodox Christian Russia….they can feed on the rotting corpses of the women and children whose corpses pop and splatter in the hot humid post-nuclear exchange first summer-with the various species of cockroach whom the Clinton’s can joyfully rule over!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Read More
  45. Sam Shama says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.
     
    It is a metaphysical question also. It is also a military one. Russia can generate alternative civilizational ideas. You may observe this process right now. Militarily, well it is a long story but US is not capable of winning conventionally (I underscore--conventionally) in Russia's vicinity--this is not the fact which sits well with many in D.C. And then, of course, comes the question of how US gained the position it currently is in.

    I agree with your observation re: the sense of scale amongst American academic elites.

    While Nuland’s version of delenda est Carthago may assume the shape of smallish ‘hot’ battles [very unlikely to end in full conflagration], the decisive one in this Punic drama is financial [and digital]. China understands this, and basically persuaded Iran to sign on to a liveable deal, while assuring itself a major seat at the Dealer’s table.

    Trouble is, the fall of Carthage also sowed the seeds of decay for Rome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    American "elites" (with some exceptions such as Mr. Giraldi) are not conditioned by (continental) war . In simple language they have no idea about the consequences of application of military force. Neither does most of US public. US "elites", and especially neocons, are manifestly incompetent in warfare. In the same time, drawing historic parallels is a very tricky business. US is no Rome and neither is Russia a Carthage. Rome never had several thousand high probability deliverable multiple independent reentry vehicles with yields of no less than 150 kTs (and higher) being aimed at it. Both Russia and US have the capacity to literally wipe each-other from the face of the Earth. As per US Russia's "expert" community--its state is pathetic, to put it mildly.
  46. @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    Uh, maybe the yid 3000 year old dream of world domination? Seems pretty clear.

    Read More
  47. @Avery
    {The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews}

    Not only that, but Russians have zero guilt feelings towards Jews, unlike Western Europeans (and Germans of course): unlike them, who collaborated with Nazis in the roundup and mass murder of Jews, the Red Army saved European Jewry from total extermination by Nazis. Russians know what they did, and are absolutely immune to the guilt trip.

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties.

    Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading USSR, Europe would be German occupied to this day, and not a single European Jew would be left alive there.

    Are you going to get to the bad part soon?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {Are you going to get to the bad part soon?}

    Hint please. Pretty please.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    Is Avery going to kick the Ziocaine addiction and take the red pill soon?

    re Kiza --


    The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews, but they are a much easier target than the Germans, plus see number one above – the gain.
     
    and Avery's Blue Pill version of WWII:

    Not only that, but Russians have zero guilt feelings towards Jews, unlike Western Europeans (and Germans of course): unlike them, who collaborated with Nazis in the roundup and mass murder of Jews, the Red Army saved European Jewry from total extermination by Nazis. Russians know what they did, and are absolutely immune to the guilt trip.
     
    How quaint. What Russians know is that they can get away with having outsourced their Jewish problem as long as they can maintain the evil-Nazi-Hitler-holocaust- narrative in secula seculorum. amen.

    Assay these elements of the Red Pill compound:

    Jews starting leaving Russia for Germany and Austria in the 1880s -- THE HASKALAH MOVEMENT IN RUSSIA, by Jacob Raisin, c 1913

    The quirky, Christian character of the German people induced most of them to accept the increasingly mass- and burdensome- migration of Russian Jews into Germany -- (deja vu). Herr Stocker, however, took a German nationalist position, for which he was tagged a -- gasp -- antisemite in this snide article from New York Times dated July 28, 1881:

    Herr Stocker and the Jews,


    "It is as a Christian [and a patriot] that [Stocker] now protests against the . . .active sympathy of certain Germans with the victims of the Jew-baiting in Russia. "Let people," he says, "in Christian mercy take pity on the persecuted; that is noble, and corresponds to the teachings of the Gospel. But it is indefensible that Germans should raise a cry for the protection of the Russian Jews, and so belie the efforts of their own countrymen to [defend themselves against exploitation by Jewish money-men who have been oppressing the German middle-class since unification]."
     
    Avery wrote:

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties.
     
    Even fewer people are aware that in the years immediately after Unification and all the way through the Weimar period, Germany was just as much a depot for Jewish immigrants from Poland and Russia as it is today from MENA, with the added burden that in the WWI and post-war years, Germany was blockaded and deliberately starved by Allied forces.

    As German ambassador to USA Hans Luther observed in May 1933:


    "He [Luther] asserted that limitation of Jewish influence in Germany was being conducted with the greatest possible consideration toward the old native Jewish families who, he said; had proven themselves good Germans and indicated that it was directed against the Eastern European Jews who had overflooded the country since the War. . . .

    Dr. Luther described the misery of German students who had to wait for years after graduating in order to obtain positions in the professions. Even before the War, he said, the legal and medical professions in Berlin, Frankfurt and other large cities were almost monopolized by certain people whose activities the German people could not consider as German.

    After the War, came the influx of East European Jews, he declared. Because of Germany’s political prostration, there was no means of excluding undesirable immigrants such as other nations had. "
    http://www.jta.org/1933/05/26/archive/nazi-jewish-policies-political-not-religious-dr-luther-asserts
     

    By the time this article was published by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, the Jewish-led economic boycott of Germany, intended to "bring Germany to its knees," was in full-gear: Germany was simultaneously the dumping-ground for hundreds of thousands of Jews fleeing Russia; was required to pay reparations while recovering from the starvation-deaths of 800,000 German citizens and the loss of millions of German men in WWI; was in political turmoil post-revolution; and was subject to an international boycott by Jews!

    Finally, this from Avery:


    Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading USSR, Europe would be German occupied to this day, and not a single European Jew would be left alive there.
     
    riiiiigght.
    Things worked out so much better, especially for the Polish people, with Stalin and the Communists running the show for the next fifty years.

    Take the opposite scenario: What if the Wehrmacht had not held Russian forces back, to the extent that they did, from invading the whole of Europe? The Communist occupation of Eastern Europe provides real-life evidence of what could have befallen the rest of Europe, but for Germany's defense of "civilization." The price that Truman and Churchill negotiated for containing Stalin in Poland was Dresden.

    As for Jews -- they were the major beneficiaries and victors of both WWI and WWII: pretty cool arrangement considering they fielded no armies therefore incurred no pension obligations, no generation of wounded and disabled veterans. Jews realized major financial profits -- Bernard Baruch alone made a billion or more in war profits. Jews gained entry privileges to USA that vastly exceeded the numbers of any other group, European or anybody else, and they acquired US taxpayer subsidies to aid in their resettlement, a benefit granted to no other immigrant group.

    And Jews cemented their hold on Palestine.
    The British lost an empire; Germany lost millions of people and large amounts of territory; even France lost 70,000 civilians to Allied air raids and a significant Italian heritage site, Monte Cassino, was bombed.
    But Jews gained permanent possession of someone else's land and the protection of major world powers to keep and expand it.
    While Allied terror bombers were reducing Germany to rubble and incinerating at least 600,000 German civilians and destroying 75% of Germany's civilian infrastructure & historic legacy, Jews spent the 1930s and 1940s in a building boom in Palestine, simultaneous with the in-gathering of the Diaspora (consistent with tenets of zionism as enunciated by Vladimir Jabotinsky in a 1935 letter, as well as David Ben Gurion's 1937 letter to his son), in which migratory activity zionists were assisted by the NSDAP.

    Avery old chap, the "Jews as perpetual victim" schtick is old; it's belied by the facts on the ground. Regurgitating it makes you look stupid.

  48. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Sam Shama
    I agree with your observation re: the sense of scale amongst American academic elites.

    While Nuland's version of delenda est Carthago may assume the shape of smallish 'hot' battles [very unlikely to end in full conflagration], the decisive one in this Punic drama is financial [and digital]. China understands this, and basically persuaded Iran to sign on to a liveable deal, while assuring itself a major seat at the Dealer's table.

    Trouble is, the fall of Carthage also sowed the seeds of decay for Rome.

    American “elites” (with some exceptions such as Mr. Giraldi) are not conditioned by (continental) war . In simple language they have no idea about the consequences of application of military force. Neither does most of US public. US “elites”, and especially neocons, are manifestly incompetent in warfare. In the same time, drawing historic parallels is a very tricky business. US is no Rome and neither is Russia a Carthage. Rome never had several thousand high probability deliverable multiple independent reentry vehicles with yields of no less than 150 kTs (and higher) being aimed at it. Both Russia and US have the capacity to literally wipe each-other from the face of the Earth. As per US Russia’s “expert” community–its state is pathetic, to put it mildly.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama
    [ US is no Rome and neither is Russia a Carthage. Rome never had several thousand high probability deliverable multiple independent reentry vehicles with yields of no less than 150 kTs (and higher) being aimed at it. Both Russia and US have the capacity to literally wipe each-other from the face of the Earth. ]

    Well yes of course, only the proximate motivations are dead similar. Nuclear end-game theories and simulations aside, a few observations and questions :

    (1) Putin, I will hazard to say, is sincere in his desire to resurrect a Russia based on traditional religious and civic mores, while forced to deal with crude oil volatility, financial and local geographic provocations. How deep is his administrative bench?

    (2) U.S State Dept., what changes can we expect [including his pick for Secy of State] under a Trump presidency?

  49. Marcus says:

    It’s ok to hate Russia (stupidly portrayed as neo-czarist by apoplectic homosexual/jewish warhawnks) now according to the media, we were supposed to at least have some sympathy for the USSR due to the nobility of communism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Pagoda
    Indeed. And it was a bit more than sympathy.
    , @tbraton
    Not being Jewish or a homosexual or a warhawk, I thought the only thing that made the Russians our enemies was Communism. In my simplicity, I thought NATO would be ended within 10 years of the dissolution of the Soviet Union back in 1991. But, as I noted in a comment on Israel Shamir's latest blog, having a military that is the size of the next 7 or 8 countries combined, creates an imperative to go around the world "looking for monsters to destroy." After all, in the words of Madeline Albright, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Apparently, she and Hillary Clinton must feel the same way about our nuclear deterrent.
  50. @Andrei Martyanov

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.
     
    It is a metaphysical question also. It is also a military one. Russia can generate alternative civilizational ideas. You may observe this process right now. Militarily, well it is a long story but US is not capable of winning conventionally (I underscore--conventionally) in Russia's vicinity--this is not the fact which sits well with many in D.C. And then, of course, comes the question of how US gained the position it currently is in.

    made me cry, so proud

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2016/05/i-couldnt-miss-this.html
  51. Avery says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Are you going to get to the bad part soon?

    {Are you going to get to the bad part soon?}

    Hint please. Pretty please.

    Read More
  52. RobinG says:

    FWIW – Anti-war conference at American U. in DC, September 23-25.

    http://worldbeyondwar.org/NoWar2016/

    No War 2016: Real Security Without Terrorism

    Seems like the usual quota of pie-in-the-sky speakers. Has anybody read their book, A Global Security System: An Alternative to War?

    http://worldbeyondwar.org/alternative/

    Do they have a useful strategy? Comment?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Philip Giraldi
    Not a single speaker that I would want to hear at the AU conference - they were all at the Koch Bros Conference last week! A Global Security system sounds like a real bad idea, probably dreamed up by Samantha Power and Susan Rice...
  53. alexander says:
    @anonymous
    I like the thinking behind saying that the slaughterhouse we created in Iraq didn't 'seriously injure' the US. Although it cost many billions well, just print some more money since apparently it's limitless. For our dead and disabled they got their medals, survivor's benefits, plastic surgery, prostheses and disability payments; now go away. As for the actual residents of the areas we've touched down in there's been life changing devastation; hundreds of thousands dead, homes and livelihoods destroyed, millions transformed into desperate, pauperized refugees. Everywhere the US goes the Grim Reaper follows. But if it's not playing out in the streets of America then it doesn't matter. I don't see any Americans, aside from a relatively small number, actually show any concern for the misery we've unleashed on smaller, weaker nations. They're lesser, inferior people who probably had it coming anyway is the thinking when they bother to think at all; injured dog stories garner more attention. What can be done with such an apathetic, indifferent public?
    The anti-Putin, anti-Russian propaganda machine is in high gear 24/7, cranking it out. One has to hand it to them, they certainly cover all bases. This drive towards confrontation and war puzzles people since much of it seems to be reckless and irrational. Is there some inner locomotive pushing all this regardless of whether we have Bush the moral cretin or the wondrous Nobel Peace Prize winner as president? Is it just the stupidity of the groupthink of supposedly smart people? Thanatos? Whatever it is it needs to be curbed in some way lest we all be dragged into disaster.

    Its a good comment you just made.

    I am not sure the American public is as apathetic to the massive suffering we have caused to people who never attacked us, rather the media functions as both a cloaking device to the horrors of our barbarism, and as an insidious, malevolent and subliminal “instructor” as to who we should and should not care about.

    This alone stands as the most grotesque aspect of the Neocon dissemination apparatus, some how they have the RIGHT to teach us whose lives are more important than others.

    Unbelievable.

    Yet another example of this fatuousness of evil, smug hubris, and fraudulent exceptionalism of our contemptible “elite”.

    What a joke.

    Read More
  54. mtn cur says:

    Despite numerous under currents, SANCTIMONY pure and simple drives neo-con job OCD towards Israel and the supposed reciprocal of Russia. These looneys don’t worry about turning earth into a radioactive hell because these, like their faux muslim clones, hope to be lifted bodily into heaven if they succeed in bringing about world war last in Gods name. Just as I pity true muslims who are mistaken for the maniacs, I likewise feel for real Christians who are always confused with vampiric Christian impersonators.

    Read More
  55. Sam Shama says:
    @Andrei Martyanov
    American "elites" (with some exceptions such as Mr. Giraldi) are not conditioned by (continental) war . In simple language they have no idea about the consequences of application of military force. Neither does most of US public. US "elites", and especially neocons, are manifestly incompetent in warfare. In the same time, drawing historic parallels is a very tricky business. US is no Rome and neither is Russia a Carthage. Rome never had several thousand high probability deliverable multiple independent reentry vehicles with yields of no less than 150 kTs (and higher) being aimed at it. Both Russia and US have the capacity to literally wipe each-other from the face of the Earth. As per US Russia's "expert" community--its state is pathetic, to put it mildly.

    [ US is no Rome and neither is Russia a Carthage. Rome never had several thousand high probability deliverable multiple independent reentry vehicles with yields of no less than 150 kTs (and higher) being aimed at it. Both Russia and US have the capacity to literally wipe each-other from the face of the Earth. ]

    Well yes of course, only the proximate motivations are dead similar. Nuclear end-game theories and simulations aside, a few observations and questions :

    (1) Putin, I will hazard to say, is sincere in his desire to resurrect a Russia based on traditional religious and civic mores, while forced to deal with crude oil volatility, financial and local geographic provocations. How deep is his administrative bench?

    (2) U.S State Dept., what changes can we expect [including his pick for Secy of State] under a Trump presidency?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    (1) Putin, I will hazard to say, is sincere in his desire to resurrect a Russia based on traditional religious and civic mores, while forced to deal with crude oil volatility, financial and local geographic provocations. How deep is his administrative bench?
     
    Putin's drama (and with it of Russia) is the fact that at least till lately he was and somewhat remains an economic "liberal", monetarist. What is dynamics of his learning--I don't know, but judging by his economic block stuffed with a bunch of laissez faire' incompetent hacks, his PM Medvedev including, doesn't look that good. His administrative bench is short--the "reform" of Armed Forces is a manifest proof of that. His team of "siloviki" alone can not produce real captains of industry and those, certainly, will not emerge from the deep recesses of the Moscow High School Of Economics where all the "brain power" of disastrous economic reforms of 1990s is concentrated. Yes, Putin is sincere but that alone is not enough. I think he begins to comprehend that it is the model which has to be thrown out, this is also a consensus among overwhelming majority of Russians.

    (2) U.S State Dept., what changes can we expect [including his pick for Secy of State] under a Trump presidency?
     
    I am not optimistic, but I could be (and I want to be) wrong. We'll see. At this stage a lot is unclear.
  56. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GSv1lRIrLrc

    made me cry, so proud
    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Smoothie: I came across the video of Masha Zakharova dancing the Kalinka on your website Reminiscence of the Future.

    apologies for failing to tip the hat.

    Your extended quote from War and Peace brought to mind the tragic figure of Katerina Ivanovna Marmeladov, from Crime and Punishment, whose proudest moment was when she danced the shawl dance for a Very Important Person, and whose proudest possession was that shawl.
  57. @RobinG
    FWIW - Anti-war conference at American U. in DC, September 23-25.
    http://worldbeyondwar.org/NoWar2016/
    No War 2016: Real Security Without Terrorism

    Seems like the usual quota of pie-in-the-sky speakers. Has anybody read their book, A Global Security System: An Alternative to War?
    http://worldbeyondwar.org/alternative/
    Do they have a useful strategy? Comment?

    Not a single speaker that I would want to hear at the AU conference – they were all at the Koch Bros Conference last week! A Global Security system sounds like a real bad idea, probably dreamed up by Samantha Power and Susan Rice…

    Read More
  58. @Wally
    One big reason is the Russian resistance to the take down of Syria's Assad that Israel is demanding.


    Without a doubt 'neo-cons' are code words for slimy Israel First Zionists.

    Not disputing, just asking: Where and when did Israel demand the takedown of Assad?

    Read More
    • Replies: @bunga
    "Israelis prefer the Somalisation of Syria, its break-up and the elimination of its army, as this will allow them to tackle Iran unopposed.

    This is implied in a secret file recently leaked by a person(s) apparently close to the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman. It contains a record of conversations between Bibi Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman and Russian President Vladimir Putin during the latter’s recent visit to Israel. Israelis seem to have no doubts about its authenticity. Counterpunch received the original file, and here are the highlights of this conversation (in our translation from Hebrew):

    Netanyahu asked Putin to facilitate Bashar Assad’s departure. “You can appoint his successor, and we shall not object , said the Israeli Prime Minister. “There is one condition – the successor must break with Iran».
    Putin responded: we have no candidate for Bashar’s successor. Do you?
    No, we don’t, replied Netanyahu, but we shall tell you our preference soon.

    Apparently, Israel can influence the rebels, inasmuch as it can bear on them to accept a successor acceptable to Tel Aviv. This means that the rebels’ chain of command goes beyond unruly field commanders, beyond Qatar and Saudi Arabia, beyond Paris and Washington, all the way to Israel. It is well known that the rebels seekfriendship with Israel, but nobody thought that Israel was able to control them to such an extent."

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/30/israels-plan-for-syria/

    Plenty more are available from antiwar.com and mondoweiss.net

    , @SolontoCroesus

    Not disputing, just asking: Where and when did Israel demand the takedown of Assad?
     
    In mid-March 2016, mere weeks before his resignation from his position in Netanyahu's Likud government, Moshe Ya'alon was in Washington to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding to renew and enhance US welfare payments to Israel, otherwise known as an Israeli shake-down of US taxpayers via bribes & blackmail of US Congress.

    While in the Capital city of the American people, Ya'alon took advantage of a platform and forum also financed by the American people, the Woodrow Wilson Center (currently under the directorship of Jane Harman) to engage in a conversation with Aaron David Miller, Chair of New Initiatives at said Wilson Center.

    In the Q&A segment of the event, a member of the Kurdish press asked a double question involving Kurdish fighters in Syria, and Israeli support for a Kurdish state. Ya'alon addressed both questions, opining that "there is no possibility for a unified state in Syria: No chance, wishful thinking" that Syria would be unified and Assad would govern. (@ 41 min) "Assad controls only 30% of his former state . . .;" the best outcome would be a federation: "there is a Syrian Kurdish state already." Ya'alon was critical that those who oppose Assad are not supported by the West, and even worse, that Iran and Russia are considered factors of a solution to the crisis in Syria.

    About 6 minutes later, another Kurdish journalist asked two questions, the first about the benefits a Kurdish state would afford to Israel, and the second question noted that "60 nations participate in the coalition to defeat ISIS. There does not seem to be a role for Israel to play. Why is that?"

    Miller jumped in and told Ya'alon to choose one of the questions to answer, "in the interests of saving time."
    The second question was ignored.

    Such a shame!

    We, the Taxpayers might have learned if, how, or why or why not Israel was supporting Sunni moderates; covertly funding or supporting ISIS; otherwise acting to harm Iran in Syria or through Syria -- Ya'alon had named Iran as an evildoer and cataloged its evil deeds at numerous points in the 67 minute conversation -- all of those questions that a government of the people is entitled to have answered, but alas!
    No time!
    Fewer than twenty minutes remained after this important question was asked, and it was essential to give the representative from CAMERA an opportunity to attack Palestinians; and to give Ya'alon time to lie about the educational materials of the Palestinians; and time for Ya'alon to recite for about the seventh time the demand that Palestinians recognize the "right of Israel to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people."

    Thank you Aaron David Miller for husbanding so carefully the resources of the American people at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

    ---

    PS. Intriguing that Ya'alon 'resigned' shortly after traveling to Washington, DC to meet with Ashton Carter to make a deal for another ten-year commitment of US (increased) welfare payments to Israel.

    Did Ya'alon fail in his mission?

    Were negotiators on the American side infected with the Donald "Art of the Deal" Trump virus?


    Second PS: As happy as such a situation might be, that US negotiators developed a backbone and said NO to Ya'alon and the Israeli demand for increased welfare payments and food weapons stamps, it's not likely.

    In another Washington conference, on cyber security, held over a several days in the first week of May 2016, Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas revealed in his keynote address that DHS had just inked an agreement to collaborate on funding joint US-Israel cyber security research and technology innovations.

    In other words, Israel will have access to any cyber security technology the USA develops, and the USA will pay Israel to acquire it.

    Plucky little Israel.

  59. @RadicalCenter
    Are you going to get to the bad part soon?

    Is Avery going to kick the Ziocaine addiction and take the red pill soon?

    re Kiza —

    The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews, but they are a much easier target than the Germans, plus see number one above – the gain.

    and Avery’s Blue Pill version of WWII:

    Not only that, but Russians have zero guilt feelings towards Jews, unlike Western Europeans (and Germans of course): unlike them, who collaborated with Nazis in the roundup and mass murder of Jews, the Red Army saved European Jewry from total extermination by Nazis. Russians know what they did, and are absolutely immune to the guilt trip.

    How quaint. What Russians know is that they can get away with having outsourced their Jewish problem as long as they can maintain the evil-Nazi-Hitler-holocaust- narrative in secula seculorum. amen.

    Assay these elements of the Red Pill compound:

    Jews starting leaving Russia for Germany and Austria in the 1880s — THE HASKALAH MOVEMENT IN RUSSIA, by Jacob Raisin, c 1913

    The quirky, Christian character of the German people induced most of them to accept the increasingly mass- and burdensome- migration of Russian Jews into Germany — (deja vu). Herr Stocker, however, took a German nationalist position, for which he was tagged a — gasp — antisemite in this snide article from New York Times dated July 28, 1881:

    Herr Stocker and the Jews,

    “It is as a Christian [and a patriot] that [Stocker] now protests against the . . .active sympathy of certain Germans with the victims of the Jew-baiting in Russia. “Let people,” he says, “in Christian mercy take pity on the persecuted; that is noble, and corresponds to the teachings of the Gospel. But it is indefensible that Germans should raise a cry for the protection of the Russian Jews, and so belie the efforts of their own countrymen to [defend themselves against exploitation by Jewish money-men who have been oppressing the German middle-class since unification].”

    Avery wrote:

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties.

    Even fewer people are aware that in the years immediately after Unification and all the way through the Weimar period, Germany was just as much a depot for Jewish immigrants from Poland and Russia as it is today from MENA, with the added burden that in the WWI and post-war years, Germany was blockaded and deliberately starved by Allied forces.

    As German ambassador to USA Hans Luther observed in May 1933:

    “He [Luther] asserted that limitation of Jewish influence in Germany was being conducted with the greatest possible consideration toward the old native Jewish families who, he said; had proven themselves good Germans and indicated that it was directed against the Eastern European Jews who had overflooded the country since the War. . . .

    Dr. Luther described the misery of German students who had to wait for years after graduating in order to obtain positions in the professions. Even before the War, he said, the legal and medical professions in Berlin, Frankfurt and other large cities were almost monopolized by certain people whose activities the German people could not consider as German.

    After the War, came the influx of East European Jews, he declared. Because of Germany’s political prostration, there was no means of excluding undesirable immigrants such as other nations had. ”
    http://www.jta.org/1933/05/26/archive/nazi-jewish-policies-political-not-religious-dr-luther-asserts

    By the time this article was published by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, the Jewish-led economic boycott of Germany, intended to “bring Germany to its knees,” was in full-gear: Germany was simultaneously the dumping-ground for hundreds of thousands of Jews fleeing Russia; was required to pay reparations while recovering from the starvation-deaths of 800,000 German citizens and the loss of millions of German men in WWI; was in political turmoil post-revolution; and was subject to an international boycott by Jews!

    Finally, this from Avery:

    Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading USSR, Europe would be German occupied to this day, and not a single European Jew would be left alive there.

    riiiiigght.
    Things worked out so much better, especially for the Polish people, with Stalin and the Communists running the show for the next fifty years.

    Take the opposite scenario: What if the Wehrmacht had not held Russian forces back, to the extent that they did, from invading the whole of Europe? The Communist occupation of Eastern Europe provides real-life evidence of what could have befallen the rest of Europe, but for Germany’s defense of “civilization.” The price that Truman and Churchill negotiated for containing Stalin in Poland was Dresden.

    As for Jews — they were the major beneficiaries and victors of both WWI and WWII: pretty cool arrangement considering they fielded no armies therefore incurred no pension obligations, no generation of wounded and disabled veterans. Jews realized major financial profits — Bernard Baruch alone made a billion or more in war profits. Jews gained entry privileges to USA that vastly exceeded the numbers of any other group, European or anybody else, and they acquired US taxpayer subsidies to aid in their resettlement, a benefit granted to no other immigrant group.

    And Jews cemented their hold on Palestine.
    The British lost an empire; Germany lost millions of people and large amounts of territory; even France lost 70,000 civilians to Allied air raids and a significant Italian heritage site, Monte Cassino, was bombed.
    But Jews gained permanent possession of someone else’s land and the protection of major world powers to keep and expand it.
    While Allied terror bombers were reducing Germany to rubble and incinerating at least 600,000 German civilians and destroying 75% of Germany’s civilian infrastructure & historic legacy, Jews spent the 1930s and 1940s in a building boom in Palestine, simultaneous with the in-gathering of the Diaspora (consistent with tenets of zionism as enunciated by Vladimir Jabotinsky in a 1935 letter, as well as David Ben Gurion’s 1937 letter to his son), in which migratory activity zionists were assisted by the NSDAP.

    Avery old chap, the “Jews as perpetual victim” schtick is old; it’s belied by the facts on the ground. Regurgitating it makes you look stupid.

    Read More
    • Replies: @bunga
    In response to--"Avery wrote:


    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties
    "
    THIS GEM --

    "DICKERSON3870

    July 14, 2012, 8:34 pm
    • Roosevelt’s advisor writes on why Jewish refugees were not offered sanctuary in the U.S. after WWII
    …“[Roosevelt] proposed a world budget for the easy migration of the 500,000 beaten people of Europe. Each nation should open its doors for some thousands of refugees…So he suggested that during my trips for him to England during the war I sound out in a general, unofficial manner the leaders of British public opinion, in and out of the government…The simple answer: Great Britain will match the United States, man for man, in admissions from Europe…It seemed all settled. With the rest of the world probably ready to give haven to 200,000, there was a sound reason for the President to press Congress to take in at least 150,000 immigrants after the war…
    “It would free us from the hypocrisy of closing our own doors while making sanctimonious demands on the Arabs…But it did not work out…The failure of the leading Jewish organizations to support with zeal this immigration programme may have caused the President not to push forward with it at that time…
    “I talked to many people active in Jewish organizations. I suggested the plan…I was amazed and even felt insulted when active Jewish leaders decried, sneered, and then attacked me as if I were a traitor…I think I know the reason for much of the opposition. There is a deep, genuine, often fanatical emotional vested interest in putting over the Palestinian movement [Zionism]. Men like Ben Hecht are little concerned about human blood if it is not their own.” ~ Jewish attorney and friend of President Roosevelt, Morris Ernst, ‘So Far, So Good’

    ENTIRE “ORIGIN” BOOKLET – link to archive.org
    - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/david-brookss-conscious-oversight-about-americas-elite/#sthash.xTfsHOqg.dpuf

    More-\

    Fighting Asylum
    The entire Zionist establishment made its position unmistakable in its response to a motion by 227 British members of Parliament calling on the government to provide asylum in British territories for persecuted Jews. . .
    . . . At a Parliamentary meeting on January 27, 1943, when the next steps were being pursued by over one hundred members of Parliament, a spokesperson for the Zionists announced that they opposed this motion because it did not contain preparations for the colonization of Palestine. This was a consistent stance.
    Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader who had arranged the Balfour Declaration and was to become the first president of Israel, made this Zionist policy very explicit: - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/david-brookss-conscious-oversight-about-americas-elite/#sthash.xTfsHOqg.dpuf

    , @Avery
    {Is Avery going to kick the Ziocaine addiction and take the red pill soon?}

    Is SolontoCroesus going to kick the Nazicaine addiction and take the red pill soon?

    Poor, poor eternally victimized, misunderstood, unfairly maligned Nazis.
    Nazis did not invade USSR and murder millions of civilians: Hitler was defending himself from Stalin.
    Nazis did not murder 3 million Poles: they all died of natural causes.
    Nazis did not murder any Jews: Jews died of natural causes.
    25-27 million Soviet citizens were not killed as a result of genocidal Nazi invasion of USSR: they all died of natural causes.

    SolontoCroesus old chap, the “Nazis as perpetual victim” schtick is getting old; it’s belied by the facts on the ground. Regurgitating it makes you look stupid.

    Here are some facts from the ground:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Ukraine#/media/File:Jew_Killings_in_Ivangorod_%281942%29.jpg
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Ukraine#/media/File:Einsatzgruppen_Killing.jpg


    And here is one of my favourites:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#/media/File:Stalingrad-dead_bodies.jpg

    Red Army "Untermenschen" soldiers pissing on Nazi "Master Race" invader, rapist, murderer trash.

    One more (a bonus, just for youse):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#/media/File:Stalingrad-dead_bodies.jpg
    A "Master Race" scarecrow getting ready for his R&R in a Siberian gulag: Nice.
    , @chris

    The quirky, Christian character of the German people induced most of them to accept the increasingly mass- and burdensome- migration of Russian Jews into Germany — (deja vu)
     
    That and just a little bit of extra, behind the scenes, inducement ! Fritz Stern in his book "Gold and Iron" says that Bismark was induced to take them in return for Bleichroder (ye ole jewish banker) bailing out a big pension fund.

    The modus operandi remains the same, it just takes a couple of years to find out what the carrot was.
  60. @Andrei Martyanov
    http://smoothiex12.blogspot.com/2016/05/i-couldnt-miss-this.html

    Smoothie: I came across the video of Masha Zakharova dancing the Kalinka on your website Reminiscence of the Future.

    apologies for failing to tip the hat.

    Your extended quote from War and Peace brought to mind the tragic figure of Katerina Ivanovna Marmeladov, from Crime and Punishment, whose proudest moment was when she danced the shawl dance for a Very Important Person, and whose proudest possession was that shawl.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov

    apologies for failing to tip the hat.
     
    Oh, no problem, my intent was to merely get you precisely to Tolstoy's quote from War And Peace.
  61. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Sam Shama
    [ US is no Rome and neither is Russia a Carthage. Rome never had several thousand high probability deliverable multiple independent reentry vehicles with yields of no less than 150 kTs (and higher) being aimed at it. Both Russia and US have the capacity to literally wipe each-other from the face of the Earth. ]

    Well yes of course, only the proximate motivations are dead similar. Nuclear end-game theories and simulations aside, a few observations and questions :

    (1) Putin, I will hazard to say, is sincere in his desire to resurrect a Russia based on traditional religious and civic mores, while forced to deal with crude oil volatility, financial and local geographic provocations. How deep is his administrative bench?

    (2) U.S State Dept., what changes can we expect [including his pick for Secy of State] under a Trump presidency?

    (1) Putin, I will hazard to say, is sincere in his desire to resurrect a Russia based on traditional religious and civic mores, while forced to deal with crude oil volatility, financial and local geographic provocations. How deep is his administrative bench?

    Putin’s drama (and with it of Russia) is the fact that at least till lately he was and somewhat remains an economic “liberal”, monetarist. What is dynamics of his learning–I don’t know, but judging by his economic block stuffed with a bunch of laissez faire’ incompetent hacks, his PM Medvedev including, doesn’t look that good. His administrative bench is short–the “reform” of Armed Forces is a manifest proof of that. His team of “siloviki” alone can not produce real captains of industry and those, certainly, will not emerge from the deep recesses of the Moscow High School Of Economics where all the “brain power” of disastrous economic reforms of 1990s is concentrated. Yes, Putin is sincere but that alone is not enough. I think he begins to comprehend that it is the model which has to be thrown out, this is also a consensus among overwhelming majority of Russians.

    (2) U.S State Dept., what changes can we expect [including his pick for Secy of State] under a Trump presidency?

    I am not optimistic, but I could be (and I want to be) wrong. We’ll see. At this stage a lot is unclear.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sam Shama

    His team of “siloviki” alone can not produce real captains of industry and those, certainly, will not emerge from the deep recesses of the Moscow High School Of Economics where all the “brain power” of disastrous economic reforms of 1990s is concentrated. Yes, Putin is sincere but that alone is not enough. I think he begins to comprehend that it is the model which has to be thrown out, this is also a consensus among overwhelming majority of Russians.
     
    Fascinating. Thank you for the insights. Its tempting to hope that under a Trump presidency, much greater commercial and educational collaboration between the two countries can be achieved.
  62. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @SolontoCroesus
    Smoothie: I came across the video of Masha Zakharova dancing the Kalinka on your website Reminiscence of the Future.

    apologies for failing to tip the hat.

    Your extended quote from War and Peace brought to mind the tragic figure of Katerina Ivanovna Marmeladov, from Crime and Punishment, whose proudest moment was when she danced the shawl dance for a Very Important Person, and whose proudest possession was that shawl.

    apologies for failing to tip the hat.

    Oh, no problem, my intent was to merely get you precisely to Tolstoy’s quote from War And Peace.

    Read More
  63. Max Payne says:
    @Avery
    {The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews}

    Not only that, but Russians have zero guilt feelings towards Jews, unlike Western Europeans (and Germans of course): unlike them, who collaborated with Nazis in the roundup and mass murder of Jews, the Red Army saved European Jewry from total extermination by Nazis. Russians know what they did, and are absolutely immune to the guilt trip.

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties.

    Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading USSR, Europe would be German occupied to this day, and not a single European Jew would be left alive there.

    Perhaps not so sinister.

    They all would have been deported to Palestine:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

    Read More
  64. @Avery
    {I can think of 2700 reasons why–each nuclear tipped }

    Closer to 8,000.

    https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/Nuclearweaponswhohaswhat

    Thanks for the correction. I had actually meant to writer “7700″ so, point taken.

    Read More
  65. annamaria says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    that the fathers and mothers of many ziocons used to be among influential bosses in the various fields of the Soviet state
     
    Stalin purged many of them.

    In case you are not aware, Stalin (Jugashvilli) was Georgian (similar to the current ruler of Odessa, the good boy Saakishvilli). Stalin was rather ethnicity-blind when eliminating the best and brightest and independent-minded in the Soviet Union.
    As for the alleged plight of Soviet Jewery, it would be interesting to see the relevant statistics, such as the percentage of Jews on the leading position in industries and academia. Judging from the percentage of Jewish billionaires among the so-called “new Russians,” Soviet Jews had plenty of opportunities to get great education and then get access to the key positions in the industries, academy, and government. Perhaps it was the incongruence between the many announcement of the supposedly vicious anti-semitism in the Soviet Union and the actual state of affairs, which made Solzhenitsyn book about the history of Jewish people in Russia ( “Two Hundred Years Together) unpublishable in the United States. After this documentary was published in Russian, Solzhenitsyn became demonized for being politically incorrect and shunned by all large publishing houses in the English-speaking West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
    Yes, I heard something about Stalin being Georgian;-) I heard other things too, you know. As to making connection to this imbecile Saakashivili purely on the merit that Stalin's and Saak's names have the same ending, I think, should Stalin be alive today, Saakashvili would have been executed, or, have been sent to the mandatory treatment in a psychiatric ward where he, certainly, belongs. As per Solzhenitsyn, I do not hold Solzh in any regard as "historian", which he never was, nor as a great writer. But it is just me. I kinda tend to rely on sources re: Russian Jewry which I deem reliable and on my own observations. As per his book--obviously it wasn't published in Anglo world, neither was Elena Chudinova's The Mosque Of Notre Dame De Paris. But then again, I have to ask the question which I asked many times--but who allowed to be corrupted to the core by, as an example, neocons? This very author, Philip Giraldi, wrote number of excellent observations on this fact. As repulsive and despicable neocons are, they found very many sympathetic allies in absolutely non-Jewish environment. You know, looking in the mirror sometimes is a very healthy process. Just to give you some taste, Mr. Giraldi's superb, in fact, in my humble opinion, a strategic article:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/old-testament-army/
    , @Ivan K.

    Stalin was rather ethnicity-blind when eliminating the best and brightest and independent-minded in the Soviet Union.
     
    Have you taken a look at Grover Furr's study of Stalin? Have you looked at Russian academic revisionist historians of the interwar period? If you did, what's your take of their work?
    , @Carroll Price

    After this documentary was published in Russian, Solzhenitsyn became demonized for being politically incorrect and shunned by all large publishing houses in the English-speaking West.
     
    You wouldn't happen to know who owned these publishing houses would you?
  66. bunga says:
    @The Grate Deign
    Not disputing, just asking: Where and when did Israel demand the takedown of Assad?

    “Israelis prefer the Somalisation of Syria, its break-up and the elimination of its army, as this will allow them to tackle Iran unopposed.

    This is implied in a secret file recently leaked by a person(s) apparently close to the Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs Avigdor Lieberman. It contains a record of conversations between Bibi Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman and Russian President Vladimir Putin during the latter’s recent visit to Israel. Israelis seem to have no doubts about its authenticity. Counterpunch received the original file, and here are the highlights of this conversation (in our translation from Hebrew):

    Netanyahu asked Putin to facilitate Bashar Assad’s departure. “You can appoint his successor, and we shall not object , said the Israeli Prime Minister. “There is one condition – the successor must break with Iran».
    Putin responded: we have no candidate for Bashar’s successor. Do you?
    No, we don’t, replied Netanyahu, but we shall tell you our preference soon.

    Apparently, Israel can influence the rebels, inasmuch as it can bear on them to accept a successor acceptable to Tel Aviv. This means that the rebels’ chain of command goes beyond unruly field commanders, beyond Qatar and Saudi Arabia, beyond Paris and Washington, all the way to Israel. It is well known that the rebels seekfriendship with Israel, but nobody thought that Israel was able to control them to such an extent.”

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/07/30/israels-plan-for-syria/

    Plenty more are available from antiwar.com and mondoweiss.net

    Read More
  67. Cyrano says:

    The US is steadfastly marching in the footsteps of Napoleon’s France and Hitler’s Germany vis a vis Russia. The funny thing is that the US is lesser of the three in terms of total military accomplishments, but this doesn’t stop them from fantasizing that they can succeed where the other two have failed.

    They (the US) are also repeating the same mistake which the other two made: If you want to rule the world – you need only one ally – Russia. If you want to fail at taking over the world, you need only one enemy – again Russia. Both Napoleon and Hitler could have taken over the world if they were smart enough to incorporate Russia as an ally in their plans.

    But I guess that’s the whole point of wanting to rule the world – not having to share it with anybody, especially not Russia. That is potentially a fatal mistake.

    Read More
    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    "Disagree" because I think the starting point for your analysis is all wrong: Hitler had no intention to "rule the world."

    I do agree that Stalin and Hitler had more in common than not: they both came to hate Bolshevism.
  68. chris says:
    @Mark Green
    The neocon hatred of Putin's Russia is tied to Russia's steadfast alliance with Iran and Syria. Israel wants that alliance shattered.

    Israel is still technically at war with Syria, and Israel has no intention of returning to Syria the land (Golan Heights) that Israel grabbed from Syria in its preemptive Six Day War (1967).

    As for Iran, the relations between Tel Aviv and Tehran could not be worse. And Russia not only trades with both Syria and Iran, but Moscow supplies these two anti-Zionist countries with all the weapons (and training) necessary to repel an Israeli attack. Russia and Israel are in the midst of a very cold war. This is why Washington is now in a cold war with Russia--to fortify Israel.

    Thus Washington has worked hard to topple Syria's Assad--even if it means funding ISIS and/or Al Queda. This is due to the simple fact that, in Official Washington, Israeli interests invariably trump all other concerns.

    And Israel wants Syria, Iran and their patron, Russia, weakened--if not ruined.

    These assorted, crypto-Zionist objectives are what propelled Washington into its wars against Iraq and Libya. Those weak, distant nations posed no threat to US security, but they did potentially threaten Zionist aspirations. And it's Israeli security/hegemony that most animates Washington's intervention reflex. So Washington attacked.

    US 'nation-building' is often a euphemism for Zionist-friendly nation-destroying.

    Thus, to keep Israel safe, Deep State operatives throughout Washington remain committed to toppling Syria's Assad.

    Assad must be replaced with either 1) a more compliant regime vis-a-vis Israel, or 2) a nation forever divided and forever weak, like today's post-Saddam Iraq.

    These objectives explain why Russia and Iran (along with Syria) are targeted for marginalization, sanction, and isolation. 'Regime change' (political transformation by whatever means necessary) is a core neocon objective. It seeks to target all nations that threaten Israel.

    Thus, US Mideast policies now reflect the aspirations of the Zionist mega-donors (Adelson, Sabin), our two corrupt major Parties, countless Israel-centric think tanks and other NGOs, and the dominant, pro-Zionist international media.

    What has this cabal of undue influence managed to accomplish?

    Israel's foes have become America's foes.

    This is a stunning achievement.

    And right now it is Putin's Russia that is standing in the way of Syria's 'transformation'.

    Putin, remember, managed to keep US forces at bay when it looked as if Obama was about to initiate a major bombing campaign there to "protect the (anti-Assad) rebels". For his daring diplomacy, Putin deserves honor. He not only saved US lives, but helped avert a potentially major confrontation involving US and Russian forces. But instead of respect, Putin (in America) is reviled.

    Why?

    Putin frustrated Israel's long-sought regime-change for Syria.

    Assad's Syria--along with Iran, Russia and even Lebanon-- are far too independent for the comfort of global Zionists. Thus, Washington is on the offense against these recalcitrant nations.

    In Official Washington, all anti-Israel states must be sanctioned, embargoed, or bombed. This is how Zio-Washington rolls.

    Very good points, Marc.

    Your arguments also lead to the point that an additional reason for the vicious and unprovoked attack on Russia is also going to be the fact that for the mayhem they still have planned for the Middle East, they need to neutralize anyone like Russia coming in and playing “good cop” and reaping all the benefits of playing that hand.

    Read More
  69. Sam Shama says:
    @Andrei Martyanov

    (1) Putin, I will hazard to say, is sincere in his desire to resurrect a Russia based on traditional religious and civic mores, while forced to deal with crude oil volatility, financial and local geographic provocations. How deep is his administrative bench?
     
    Putin's drama (and with it of Russia) is the fact that at least till lately he was and somewhat remains an economic "liberal", monetarist. What is dynamics of his learning--I don't know, but judging by his economic block stuffed with a bunch of laissez faire' incompetent hacks, his PM Medvedev including, doesn't look that good. His administrative bench is short--the "reform" of Armed Forces is a manifest proof of that. His team of "siloviki" alone can not produce real captains of industry and those, certainly, will not emerge from the deep recesses of the Moscow High School Of Economics where all the "brain power" of disastrous economic reforms of 1990s is concentrated. Yes, Putin is sincere but that alone is not enough. I think he begins to comprehend that it is the model which has to be thrown out, this is also a consensus among overwhelming majority of Russians.

    (2) U.S State Dept., what changes can we expect [including his pick for Secy of State] under a Trump presidency?
     
    I am not optimistic, but I could be (and I want to be) wrong. We'll see. At this stage a lot is unclear.

    His team of “siloviki” alone can not produce real captains of industry and those, certainly, will not emerge from the deep recesses of the Moscow High School Of Economics where all the “brain power” of disastrous economic reforms of 1990s is concentrated. Yes, Putin is sincere but that alone is not enough. I think he begins to comprehend that it is the model which has to be thrown out, this is also a consensus among overwhelming majority of Russians.

    Fascinating. Thank you for the insights. Its tempting to hope that under a Trump presidency, much greater commercial and educational collaboration between the two countries can be achieved.

    Read More
  70. bunga says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Is Avery going to kick the Ziocaine addiction and take the red pill soon?

    re Kiza --


    The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews, but they are a much easier target than the Germans, plus see number one above – the gain.
     
    and Avery's Blue Pill version of WWII:

    Not only that, but Russians have zero guilt feelings towards Jews, unlike Western Europeans (and Germans of course): unlike them, who collaborated with Nazis in the roundup and mass murder of Jews, the Red Army saved European Jewry from total extermination by Nazis. Russians know what they did, and are absolutely immune to the guilt trip.
     
    How quaint. What Russians know is that they can get away with having outsourced their Jewish problem as long as they can maintain the evil-Nazi-Hitler-holocaust- narrative in secula seculorum. amen.

    Assay these elements of the Red Pill compound:

    Jews starting leaving Russia for Germany and Austria in the 1880s -- THE HASKALAH MOVEMENT IN RUSSIA, by Jacob Raisin, c 1913

    The quirky, Christian character of the German people induced most of them to accept the increasingly mass- and burdensome- migration of Russian Jews into Germany -- (deja vu). Herr Stocker, however, took a German nationalist position, for which he was tagged a -- gasp -- antisemite in this snide article from New York Times dated July 28, 1881:

    Herr Stocker and the Jews,


    "It is as a Christian [and a patriot] that [Stocker] now protests against the . . .active sympathy of certain Germans with the victims of the Jew-baiting in Russia. "Let people," he says, "in Christian mercy take pity on the persecuted; that is noble, and corresponds to the teachings of the Gospel. But it is indefensible that Germans should raise a cry for the protection of the Russian Jews, and so belie the efforts of their own countrymen to [defend themselves against exploitation by Jewish money-men who have been oppressing the German middle-class since unification]."
     
    Avery wrote:

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties.
     
    Even fewer people are aware that in the years immediately after Unification and all the way through the Weimar period, Germany was just as much a depot for Jewish immigrants from Poland and Russia as it is today from MENA, with the added burden that in the WWI and post-war years, Germany was blockaded and deliberately starved by Allied forces.

    As German ambassador to USA Hans Luther observed in May 1933:


    "He [Luther] asserted that limitation of Jewish influence in Germany was being conducted with the greatest possible consideration toward the old native Jewish families who, he said; had proven themselves good Germans and indicated that it was directed against the Eastern European Jews who had overflooded the country since the War. . . .

    Dr. Luther described the misery of German students who had to wait for years after graduating in order to obtain positions in the professions. Even before the War, he said, the legal and medical professions in Berlin, Frankfurt and other large cities were almost monopolized by certain people whose activities the German people could not consider as German.

    After the War, came the influx of East European Jews, he declared. Because of Germany’s political prostration, there was no means of excluding undesirable immigrants such as other nations had. "
    http://www.jta.org/1933/05/26/archive/nazi-jewish-policies-political-not-religious-dr-luther-asserts
     

    By the time this article was published by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, the Jewish-led economic boycott of Germany, intended to "bring Germany to its knees," was in full-gear: Germany was simultaneously the dumping-ground for hundreds of thousands of Jews fleeing Russia; was required to pay reparations while recovering from the starvation-deaths of 800,000 German citizens and the loss of millions of German men in WWI; was in political turmoil post-revolution; and was subject to an international boycott by Jews!

    Finally, this from Avery:


    Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading USSR, Europe would be German occupied to this day, and not a single European Jew would be left alive there.
     
    riiiiigght.
    Things worked out so much better, especially for the Polish people, with Stalin and the Communists running the show for the next fifty years.

    Take the opposite scenario: What if the Wehrmacht had not held Russian forces back, to the extent that they did, from invading the whole of Europe? The Communist occupation of Eastern Europe provides real-life evidence of what could have befallen the rest of Europe, but for Germany's defense of "civilization." The price that Truman and Churchill negotiated for containing Stalin in Poland was Dresden.

    As for Jews -- they were the major beneficiaries and victors of both WWI and WWII: pretty cool arrangement considering they fielded no armies therefore incurred no pension obligations, no generation of wounded and disabled veterans. Jews realized major financial profits -- Bernard Baruch alone made a billion or more in war profits. Jews gained entry privileges to USA that vastly exceeded the numbers of any other group, European or anybody else, and they acquired US taxpayer subsidies to aid in their resettlement, a benefit granted to no other immigrant group.

    And Jews cemented their hold on Palestine.
    The British lost an empire; Germany lost millions of people and large amounts of territory; even France lost 70,000 civilians to Allied air raids and a significant Italian heritage site, Monte Cassino, was bombed.
    But Jews gained permanent possession of someone else's land and the protection of major world powers to keep and expand it.
    While Allied terror bombers were reducing Germany to rubble and incinerating at least 600,000 German civilians and destroying 75% of Germany's civilian infrastructure & historic legacy, Jews spent the 1930s and 1940s in a building boom in Palestine, simultaneous with the in-gathering of the Diaspora (consistent with tenets of zionism as enunciated by Vladimir Jabotinsky in a 1935 letter, as well as David Ben Gurion's 1937 letter to his son), in which migratory activity zionists were assisted by the NSDAP.

    Avery old chap, the "Jews as perpetual victim" schtick is old; it's belied by the facts on the ground. Regurgitating it makes you look stupid.

    In response to–”Avery wrote:

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties

    THIS GEM –

    “DICKERSON3870

    July 14, 2012, 8:34 pm
    • Roosevelt’s advisor writes on why Jewish refugees were not offered sanctuary in the U.S. after WWII
    …“[Roosevelt] proposed a world budget for the easy migration of the 500,000 beaten people of Europe. Each nation should open its doors for some thousands of refugees…So he suggested that during my trips for him to England during the war I sound out in a general, unofficial manner the leaders of British public opinion, in and out of the government…The simple answer: Great Britain will match the United States, man for man, in admissions from Europe…It seemed all settled. With the rest of the world probably ready to give haven to 200,000, there was a sound reason for the President to press Congress to take in at least 150,000 immigrants after the war…
    “It would free us from the hypocrisy of closing our own doors while making sanctimonious demands on the Arabs…But it did not work out…The failure of the leading Jewish organizations to support with zeal this immigration programme may have caused the President not to push forward with it at that time…
    “I talked to many people active in Jewish organizations. I suggested the plan…I was amazed and even felt insulted when active Jewish leaders decried, sneered, and then attacked me as if I were a traitor…I think I know the reason for much of the opposition. There is a deep, genuine, often fanatical emotional vested interest in putting over the Palestinian movement [Zionism]. Men like Ben Hecht are little concerned about human blood if it is not their own.” ~ Jewish attorney and friend of President Roosevelt, Morris Ernst, ‘So Far, So Good’

    ENTIRE “ORIGIN” BOOKLET – link to archive.org
    - See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/david-brookss-conscious-oversight-about-americas-elite/#sthash.xTfsHOqg.dpuf

    More-\

    Fighting Asylum
    The entire Zionist establishment made its position unmistakable in its response to a motion by 227 British members of Parliament calling on the government to provide asylum in British territories for persecuted Jews. . .
    . . . At a Parliamentary meeting on January 27, 1943, when the next steps were being pursued by over one hundred members of Parliament, a spokesperson for the Zionists announced that they opposed this motion because it did not contain preparations for the colonization of Palestine. This was a consistent stance.
    Chaim Weizmann, the Zionist leader who had arranged the Balfour Declaration and was to become the first president of Israel, made this Zionist policy very explicit: – See more at: http://mondoweiss.net/2012/07/david-brookss-conscious-oversight-about-americas-elite/#sthash.xTfsHOqg.dpuf

    Read More
  71. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    I wonder in what kind of scenario a nuclear exchange ends in only severe destruction to U.S.?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Another thing that most people do not appreciate is that the humanity does not really know the effect of turning the surface of the Earth into the surface of the Sun for a couple of hours. There is even a theory that the Earth's atmosphere could pop out like a balloon into the inter-planetary space after so many of its molecules get hyper-accelerated. Scientists are biased in favor of a linear behavior because this approach is so popular for the purpose of simplification of natural phenomena (and simulations). This is why they look at individual nuclear test explosions and just multiply, but the nature's response to the persistent nuclear explosions could be an exponential phenomenon: pops out the atmosphere, changes the rotation of the planet, the inclination of its axis.

    To come closer to your question, there is a strong advantage on the side which does the First Strike. If Russia were to attack the US and all US warning systems would fail, then in theory only the US would be destroyed. However, if even a small portion of the 8,000 nuclear warheads explode over the US, even under the silly linear model, not many people of the world would survive the spread of radiation and nuclear winter hit on food supply. Possibly half of all Russians would die from the effects of such victory, even without any nuclear missile exploding over Russia. Naturally, I believe that a US First Strike on Russia is much more likely, but when things get crazy nobody is really immune from doing the stupidest crime.

    In other words, a nuclear war would only make sense for the inhabitants of Mars, not for anybody sharing this planet.

  72. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @annamaria
    In case you are not aware, Stalin (Jugashvilli) was Georgian (similar to the current ruler of Odessa, the good boy Saakishvilli). Stalin was rather ethnicity-blind when eliminating the best and brightest and independent-minded in the Soviet Union.
    As for the alleged plight of Soviet Jewery, it would be interesting to see the relevant statistics, such as the percentage of Jews on the leading position in industries and academia. Judging from the percentage of Jewish billionaires among the so-called "new Russians," Soviet Jews had plenty of opportunities to get great education and then get access to the key positions in the industries, academy, and government. Perhaps it was the incongruence between the many announcement of the supposedly vicious anti-semitism in the Soviet Union and the actual state of affairs, which made Solzhenitsyn book about the history of Jewish people in Russia ( "Two Hundred Years Together) unpublishable in the United States. After this documentary was published in Russian, Solzhenitsyn became demonized for being politically incorrect and shunned by all large publishing houses in the English-speaking West.

    Yes, I heard something about Stalin being Georgian;-) I heard other things too, you know. As to making connection to this imbecile Saakashivili purely on the merit that Stalin’s and Saak’s names have the same ending, I think, should Stalin be alive today, Saakashvili would have been executed, or, have been sent to the mandatory treatment in a psychiatric ward where he, certainly, belongs. As per Solzhenitsyn, I do not hold Solzh in any regard as “historian”, which he never was, nor as a great writer. But it is just me. I kinda tend to rely on sources re: Russian Jewry which I deem reliable and on my own observations. As per his book–obviously it wasn’t published in Anglo world, neither was Elena Chudinova’s The Mosque Of Notre Dame De Paris. But then again, I have to ask the question which I asked many times–but who allowed to be corrupted to the core by, as an example, neocons? This very author, Philip Giraldi, wrote number of excellent observations on this fact. As repulsive and despicable neocons are, they found very many sympathetic allies in absolutely non-Jewish environment. You know, looking in the mirror sometimes is a very healthy process. Just to give you some taste, Mr. Giraldi’s superb, in fact, in my humble opinion, a strategic article:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/old-testament-army/

    Read More
  73. schmenz says:

    Writes Phil:

    “And the nearly constant animosity directed against Russia by the Obama Administration should be seen as madness as the stakes in the game, a possible nuclear war, are, or should be, unthinkable.”

    Yes, these people are insane. Wanting to goad Russia into a war and wanting forty year-old sex perverts to inhabit the Ladies Rooms of America should be enough to convince anyone that we as a country have gone off the rails.

    Read More
  74. @The Grate Deign
    Not disputing, just asking: Where and when did Israel demand the takedown of Assad?

    Not disputing, just asking: Where and when did Israel demand the takedown of Assad?

    In mid-March 2016, mere weeks before his resignation from his position in Netanyahu’s Likud government, Moshe Ya’alon was in Washington to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding to renew and enhance US welfare payments to Israel, otherwise known as an Israeli shake-down of US taxpayers via bribes & blackmail of US Congress.

    While in the Capital city of the American people, Ya’alon took advantage of a platform and forum also financed by the American people, the Woodrow Wilson Center (currently under the directorship of Jane Harman) to engage in a conversation with Aaron David Miller, Chair of New Initiatives at said Wilson Center.

    In the Q&A segment of the event, a member of the Kurdish press asked a double question involving Kurdish fighters in Syria, and Israeli support for a Kurdish state. Ya’alon addressed both questions, opining that “there is no possibility for a unified state in Syria: No chance, wishful thinking” that Syria would be unified and Assad would govern. (@ 41 min) “Assad controls only 30% of his former state . . .;” the best outcome would be a federation: “there is a Syrian Kurdish state already.” Ya’alon was critical that those who oppose Assad are not supported by the West, and even worse, that Iran and Russia are considered factors of a solution to the crisis in Syria.

    About 6 minutes later, another Kurdish journalist asked two questions, the first about the benefits a Kurdish state would afford to Israel, and the second question noted that “60 nations participate in the coalition to defeat ISIS. There does not seem to be a role for Israel to play. Why is that?”

    Miller jumped in and told Ya’alon to choose one of the questions to answer, “in the interests of saving time.”
    The second question was ignored.

    Such a shame!

    We, the Taxpayers might have learned if, how, or why or why not Israel was supporting Sunni moderates; covertly funding or supporting ISIS; otherwise acting to harm Iran in Syria or through Syria — Ya’alon had named Iran as an evildoer and cataloged its evil deeds at numerous points in the 67 minute conversation — all of those questions that a government of the people is entitled to have answered, but alas!
    No time!
    Fewer than twenty minutes remained after this important question was asked, and it was essential to give the representative from CAMERA an opportunity to attack Palestinians; and to give Ya’alon time to lie about the educational materials of the Palestinians; and time for Ya’alon to recite for about the seventh time the demand that Palestinians recognize the “right of Israel to exist as the nation state of the Jewish people.”

    Thank you Aaron David Miller for husbanding so carefully the resources of the American people at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

    PS. Intriguing that Ya’alon ‘resigned’ shortly after traveling to Washington, DC to meet with Ashton Carter to make a deal for another ten-year commitment of US (increased) welfare payments to Israel.

    Did Ya’alon fail in his mission?

    Were negotiators on the American side infected with the Donald “Art of the Deal” Trump virus?

    Second PS: As happy as such a situation might be, that US negotiators developed a backbone and said NO to Ya’alon and the Israeli demand for increased welfare payments and food weapons stamps, it’s not likely.

    In another Washington conference, on cyber security, held over a several days in the first week of May 2016, Deputy Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas revealed in his keynote address that DHS had just inked an agreement to collaborate on funding joint US-Israel cyber security research and technology innovations.

    In other words, Israel will have access to any cyber security technology the USA develops, and the USA will pay Israel to acquire it.

    Plucky little Israel.

    Read More
  75. Avery says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Is Avery going to kick the Ziocaine addiction and take the red pill soon?

    re Kiza --


    The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews, but they are a much easier target than the Germans, plus see number one above – the gain.
     
    and Avery's Blue Pill version of WWII:

    Not only that, but Russians have zero guilt feelings towards Jews, unlike Western Europeans (and Germans of course): unlike them, who collaborated with Nazis in the roundup and mass murder of Jews, the Red Army saved European Jewry from total extermination by Nazis. Russians know what they did, and are absolutely immune to the guilt trip.
     
    How quaint. What Russians know is that they can get away with having outsourced their Jewish problem as long as they can maintain the evil-Nazi-Hitler-holocaust- narrative in secula seculorum. amen.

    Assay these elements of the Red Pill compound:

    Jews starting leaving Russia for Germany and Austria in the 1880s -- THE HASKALAH MOVEMENT IN RUSSIA, by Jacob Raisin, c 1913

    The quirky, Christian character of the German people induced most of them to accept the increasingly mass- and burdensome- migration of Russian Jews into Germany -- (deja vu). Herr Stocker, however, took a German nationalist position, for which he was tagged a -- gasp -- antisemite in this snide article from New York Times dated July 28, 1881:

    Herr Stocker and the Jews,


    "It is as a Christian [and a patriot] that [Stocker] now protests against the . . .active sympathy of certain Germans with the victims of the Jew-baiting in Russia. "Let people," he says, "in Christian mercy take pity on the persecuted; that is noble, and corresponds to the teachings of the Gospel. But it is indefensible that Germans should raise a cry for the protection of the Russian Jews, and so belie the efforts of their own countrymen to [defend themselves against exploitation by Jewish money-men who have been oppressing the German middle-class since unification]."
     
    Avery wrote:

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties.
     
    Even fewer people are aware that in the years immediately after Unification and all the way through the Weimar period, Germany was just as much a depot for Jewish immigrants from Poland and Russia as it is today from MENA, with the added burden that in the WWI and post-war years, Germany was blockaded and deliberately starved by Allied forces.

    As German ambassador to USA Hans Luther observed in May 1933:


    "He [Luther] asserted that limitation of Jewish influence in Germany was being conducted with the greatest possible consideration toward the old native Jewish families who, he said; had proven themselves good Germans and indicated that it was directed against the Eastern European Jews who had overflooded the country since the War. . . .

    Dr. Luther described the misery of German students who had to wait for years after graduating in order to obtain positions in the professions. Even before the War, he said, the legal and medical professions in Berlin, Frankfurt and other large cities were almost monopolized by certain people whose activities the German people could not consider as German.

    After the War, came the influx of East European Jews, he declared. Because of Germany’s political prostration, there was no means of excluding undesirable immigrants such as other nations had. "
    http://www.jta.org/1933/05/26/archive/nazi-jewish-policies-political-not-religious-dr-luther-asserts
     

    By the time this article was published by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, the Jewish-led economic boycott of Germany, intended to "bring Germany to its knees," was in full-gear: Germany was simultaneously the dumping-ground for hundreds of thousands of Jews fleeing Russia; was required to pay reparations while recovering from the starvation-deaths of 800,000 German citizens and the loss of millions of German men in WWI; was in political turmoil post-revolution; and was subject to an international boycott by Jews!

    Finally, this from Avery:


    Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading USSR, Europe would be German occupied to this day, and not a single European Jew would be left alive there.
     
    riiiiigght.
    Things worked out so much better, especially for the Polish people, with Stalin and the Communists running the show for the next fifty years.

    Take the opposite scenario: What if the Wehrmacht had not held Russian forces back, to the extent that they did, from invading the whole of Europe? The Communist occupation of Eastern Europe provides real-life evidence of what could have befallen the rest of Europe, but for Germany's defense of "civilization." The price that Truman and Churchill negotiated for containing Stalin in Poland was Dresden.

    As for Jews -- they were the major beneficiaries and victors of both WWI and WWII: pretty cool arrangement considering they fielded no armies therefore incurred no pension obligations, no generation of wounded and disabled veterans. Jews realized major financial profits -- Bernard Baruch alone made a billion or more in war profits. Jews gained entry privileges to USA that vastly exceeded the numbers of any other group, European or anybody else, and they acquired US taxpayer subsidies to aid in their resettlement, a benefit granted to no other immigrant group.

    And Jews cemented their hold on Palestine.
    The British lost an empire; Germany lost millions of people and large amounts of territory; even France lost 70,000 civilians to Allied air raids and a significant Italian heritage site, Monte Cassino, was bombed.
    But Jews gained permanent possession of someone else's land and the protection of major world powers to keep and expand it.
    While Allied terror bombers were reducing Germany to rubble and incinerating at least 600,000 German civilians and destroying 75% of Germany's civilian infrastructure & historic legacy, Jews spent the 1930s and 1940s in a building boom in Palestine, simultaneous with the in-gathering of the Diaspora (consistent with tenets of zionism as enunciated by Vladimir Jabotinsky in a 1935 letter, as well as David Ben Gurion's 1937 letter to his son), in which migratory activity zionists were assisted by the NSDAP.

    Avery old chap, the "Jews as perpetual victim" schtick is old; it's belied by the facts on the ground. Regurgitating it makes you look stupid.

    {Is Avery going to kick the Ziocaine addiction and take the red pill soon?}

    Is SolontoCroesus going to kick the Nazicaine addiction and take the red pill soon?

    Poor, poor eternally victimized, misunderstood, unfairly maligned Nazis.
    Nazis did not invade USSR and murder millions of civilians: Hitler was defending himself from Stalin.
    Nazis did not murder 3 million Poles: they all died of natural causes.
    Nazis did not murder any Jews: Jews died of natural causes.
    25-27 million Soviet citizens were not killed as a result of genocidal Nazi invasion of USSR: they all died of natural causes.

    SolontoCroesus old chap, the “Nazis as perpetual victim” schtick is getting old; it’s belied by the facts on the ground. Regurgitating it makes you look stupid.

    Here are some facts from the ground:

    And here is one of my favourites:

    Red Army “Untermenschen” soldiers pissing on Nazi “Master Race” invader, rapist, murderer trash.

    One more (a bonus, just for youse):

    A “Master Race” scarecrow getting ready for his R&R in a Siberian gulag: Nice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Here are some facts from the ground:
     
    Those are not facts, Avery, they're photos, snapshots of a moment in time, devoid of explanatory value in terms of cause-and-effect: what facts, what decisions, with what motives, set in motion the situation that resulted in the deaths displayed in such an emotionally charged fashion?

    The emotionally loaded photos are the outcome, not the cause. iow, you got nuthin' .

    I will give you this: wikipedia is a baby-step up from your otherwise comic book version of WWII, but only a baby step.

    A Pink Pill -- Maalox?

    try again.
  76. @Cyrano
    The US is steadfastly marching in the footsteps of Napoleon’s France and Hitler’s Germany vis a vis Russia. The funny thing is that the US is lesser of the three in terms of total military accomplishments, but this doesn’t stop them from fantasizing that they can succeed where the other two have failed.

    They (the US) are also repeating the same mistake which the other two made: If you want to rule the world – you need only one ally – Russia. If you want to fail at taking over the world, you need only one enemy – again Russia. Both Napoleon and Hitler could have taken over the world if they were smart enough to incorporate Russia as an ally in their plans.

    But I guess that’s the whole point of wanting to rule the world – not having to share it with anybody, especially not Russia. That is potentially a fatal mistake.

    “Disagree” because I think the starting point for your analysis is all wrong: Hitler had no intention to “rule the world.”

    I do agree that Stalin and Hitler had more in common than not: they both came to hate Bolshevism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    You got it man, Stalin and Hitler were the same and only US was morally superior to them both, which allowed them to make a decision free from any influence to ally themselves with the ones they have nothing in common with in terms of culture or shared values – the Russians.

    Your story of Poland exchanging one occupier with another is bogus too. Russia liberated Poland from Germany. Or maybe according to your logic Germany pre-emptively liberated Poland from Russia, anticipating that Stalin would occupy them after WWII?

    If Stalin was equal to Hitler how come the Americans choose Stalin as an ally, when they are culturally closer to Germany, even - or maybe especially – to the Nazi Germany than they are to Russia.

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.

    WWII era Americans were capable of making the right choices and judging by what is going on today, they are no longer able of doing that. That’s why you’re ending up with Hilary or Trump as the next president. Some democracy you have over there.
  77. @Avery
    {Is Avery going to kick the Ziocaine addiction and take the red pill soon?}

    Is SolontoCroesus going to kick the Nazicaine addiction and take the red pill soon?

    Poor, poor eternally victimized, misunderstood, unfairly maligned Nazis.
    Nazis did not invade USSR and murder millions of civilians: Hitler was defending himself from Stalin.
    Nazis did not murder 3 million Poles: they all died of natural causes.
    Nazis did not murder any Jews: Jews died of natural causes.
    25-27 million Soviet citizens were not killed as a result of genocidal Nazi invasion of USSR: they all died of natural causes.

    SolontoCroesus old chap, the “Nazis as perpetual victim” schtick is getting old; it’s belied by the facts on the ground. Regurgitating it makes you look stupid.

    Here are some facts from the ground:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Ukraine#/media/File:Jew_Killings_in_Ivangorod_%281942%29.jpg
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust_in_Ukraine#/media/File:Einsatzgruppen_Killing.jpg


    And here is one of my favourites:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#/media/File:Stalingrad-dead_bodies.jpg

    Red Army "Untermenschen" soldiers pissing on Nazi "Master Race" invader, rapist, murderer trash.

    One more (a bonus, just for youse):
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Stalingrad#/media/File:Stalingrad-dead_bodies.jpg
    A "Master Race" scarecrow getting ready for his R&R in a Siberian gulag: Nice.

    Here are some facts from the ground:

    Those are not facts, Avery, they’re photos, snapshots of a moment in time, devoid of explanatory value in terms of cause-and-effect: what facts, what decisions, with what motives, set in motion the situation that resulted in the deaths displayed in such an emotionally charged fashion?

    The emotionally loaded photos are the outcome, not the cause. iow, you got nuthin’ .

    I will give you this: wikipedia is a baby-step up from your otherwise comic book version of WWII, but only a baby step.

    A Pink Pill — Maalox?

    try again.

    Read More
  78. Rehmat says:

    Come on Dr. Giraldi – John Mearsheimer is no authority to tell good Americans what is good for their country. In 2012, the man was declared “Jew hater” by no other than America’s highest paid Jewish lobbyist Abraham Foxman who was honored by Barack Obama as the most patriotic American and a “statesman” before dude’s retirement after leading country’s top racist organization ADL for five decades.

    On December 18, 2012, Foxman told ‘Washington Post’ columnist Jennifer Rubin: “Chuck Hagel would not be the first, second, or third choice for the American Jewish community’s friends of Israel. His record relating to Israel and US-Israel relationship is, at best, disturbing, and at worst, very troubling. The sentiments he has expressed about the Jewish lobby border on antisemitism in the genre of professor John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, and former president Jimmy Carter“.

    https://rehmat1.com/2012/12/20/jews-against-chuck-hagel/

    Read More
  79. AmericanaCON [AKA "Jumperliberal"] says:
    @Corvinus
    Any sources to back up your assertion?

    I think it is his conclusion about the events that is now unfolding. My view is that the politicians of the West have different ideas for the future. Firstly, they want a world without borders were capital, products and people can move freely. This is beneficiary for corporations, banks and the very mobile elites. This is why they forcefully oppose the national state and nationalism. In general I think this is what people see. It is extremely obvious. Secondly, many seem supportive of a greater Israel. However, this is more an issue in United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany than in the European Union. The political elite in smaller countries seem to care less for this issue. Thirdly, politicians tend to do whatever their donors, corporate media and lobbyists tell them to do. This is where things get confusing as different actors have different ideas and want different things. If we look at what governments does;

    China is very concerned about shipping goods to the West. However, they have very little concern about liberal or neo-conservative projects. There has been some heavy lobbying to convince China to adopt the Global Warming narrative. However, the Chinese government continues to reject such narrative when it conflicts with their economic interest. Washington and Brussels has been pushed for “Liberal Democracy” in China for two decades but it simply does not stick. They don’t want it as they see Liberal Democracy as a Western invention they don’t need. It is simply bad for business the Chinese government argues. You see similar pattern in the rest of Eastern Asia including fairly westernized societies such as South Korea and Japan.

    The Eastern Asian governments are always on their toes to get trade deals with United States (and in lesser degree with European Union) but they will not sacrifice anything. Instead they play on the Western corporate greed and they do it very successfully. In the constantly burning Middle East the wealthy Gulf States has their agenda which often is about fighting ideological turf wars over religion, economics and ideology. What Washington or Brussels says is nothing they are deeply concerned about. Their lobbyist see to that things go smoothly in Washington and Brussels. When it comes to Africa and Latin-America they cannot simply function. Most of them are flawed democracies or dictatorships. Hence, they might vote with or against the West depending who is picking up their bills. Brussels have spent a lot of time to get The Eastern Europeans (and the Russians) to follow in line but their mentality is similar to the Asians. Their leaders will not do anything if they are does not receive a pay check.

    Look at the Visegrad nations (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) – they simply do not feel threatened by some liberal hack in the European Commission who tells them that they have admit migrants from third world countries. The European Union can only control countries like Romania which are in desperately in need for loans. The Western elites are losing ground rapidly. There is a new political dawn which goes against globalization and a liberal world order. This is the consequence of the insanity of liberalism have negatively hurt all economic sectors and the very life the people of the West and the small people across the world. I think Marine Le Pen was quite right when she said that we are heading towards a symbolic civil war in the West – between them who argues for globalization and those who argues for the national-state. I think the former will win.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    “Firstly, they want a world without borders were capital, products and people can move freely.”

    Undoubtedly, SOME leaders are pursing this agenda.

    “This is beneficiary for corporations, banks and the very mobile elites.”


    Capitalists. Do NOT these groups have the liberty to pursue their own endeavors?

    
“Thirdly, politicians tend to do whatever their donors, corporate media and lobbyists tell them to do.”

    You are downplaying politicians’ own interests and free will.

    “The Western elites are losing ground rapidly.”


    Define “western elites”. You are being vague.

    
“I think Marine Le Pen was quite right when she said that we are heading towards a symbolic civil war in the West – between them who argues for globalization and those who argues for the national-state. I think the former will win.”



    Symbolic, huh. Then that means the “western elites”, or whomever they are, are actually NOT “losing ground rapidly”.
  80. bunga says:

    How the World Ends

    There is also a parallel process at home

    ““The FBI, which pockets $5 billion a year for its counterterrorism programs, has profited mightily from ginning up bogus plots that generate lurid headlines. For instance, a September 28, 2011, FBI press release trumpeted the arrest of Rezwan Ferdaus, a U.S. citizen, on charges that he planned to use “large remote controlled aircraft filled with C-4 plastic explosives” to “destroy the Pentagon and U.S. Capitol.” The culprit, a 26-year-old Bangladeshi American suffering from seizures and being treated for severe depression, had been bankrolled and enticed to embrace a scheme he almost certainly wouldn’t have considered on his own.
    As a 2014 report by Human Rights Watch and Columbia University Law School’s Human Rights Institute noted, “Multiple studies have found that nearly 50 percent of the federal counterterrorism convictions since September 11, 2001, resulted from informant-based cases.” That doesn’t sound so bad until you realize the informants’ job in many of these instances was to trick otherwise innocent people into signing on to illegal plots of the government’s own invention. In one case, a judge concluded that the government “came up with the crime, provided the means, and removed all relevant obstacles” in order to make a “terrorist” out of a man “whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in scope.”
    Trevor Aaronson, author of The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terrorism, estimates that only about 1 percent of the 500 people charged with international terrorism offenses in the decade after 9/11 were bona fide threats. Thirty times as many were induced by the FBI to behave in ways that prompted their arrest. A 2011 report by the New York University School of Law Center for Human Rights and Global Justice examined several high-profile cases and found that “the government’s informants introduced and aggressively pushed ideas about violent jihad and, moreover, actually encouraged the defendants to believe it was their duty to take action against the United States.
    Ohio State University professor John Mueller, co-author of Chasing Ghosts: The Policing of Terrorism, observes that no terrorist entity within the U.S. was able “to detonate even a simple bomb” in the decade after 9/11. Aspiring terrorists even “have difficulty putting together bombs,”

    https://reason.com/archives/2016/05/22/the-4-trillion-war-on-terror

    If a or any government can entrap by duping falsifying and sabotaging and distorting the due process of justice and it can do boldfaced to its own citizen and to its institutions , nothing is preventing it do same abroad on a much bigger scale .

    Read More
  81. RobinG says:

    EGYPT AIR

    Please forgive me for being very OT, and a trifle macabre, but when you hear “28 bags of human body parts, the largest the size of the palm of a hand do you imagine
    a) 28 black plastic garbage bags full of assorted body parts, or
    b) 28 forensic evidence bags, each with one small part?

    And, in either case, how do you imagine these were discovered and collected? Were chunks of flesh adhered to floating debris? Did they wash up somewhere? Were they skimmed from a debris field with a net? Were they spotted one by one, drifting at sea?

    (For wilder speculation, were they soaked in brine and planted somehow, by somebody…) Considering how long it took them to find the first legitimate pieces of the plane (assuming they are) it’s interesting.

    Read More
  82. Cyrano says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    "Disagree" because I think the starting point for your analysis is all wrong: Hitler had no intention to "rule the world."

    I do agree that Stalin and Hitler had more in common than not: they both came to hate Bolshevism.

    You got it man, Stalin and Hitler were the same and only US was morally superior to them both, which allowed them to make a decision free from any influence to ally themselves with the ones they have nothing in common with in terms of culture or shared values – the Russians.

    Your story of Poland exchanging one occupier with another is bogus too. Russia liberated Poland from Germany. Or maybe according to your logic Germany pre-emptively liberated Poland from Russia, anticipating that Stalin would occupy them after WWII?

    If Stalin was equal to Hitler how come the Americans choose Stalin as an ally, when they are culturally closer to Germany, even – or maybe especially – to the Nazi Germany than they are to Russia.

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.

    WWII era Americans were capable of making the right choices and judging by what is going on today, they are no longer able of doing that. That’s why you’re ending up with Hilary or Trump as the next president. Some democracy you have over there.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism.
     
    Which explains why Woodrow Wilson sent US forces to Siberia in 1918 - 1920 in an attempt to eradicate Bolshevism.

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.
    WWII era Americans were capable of making the right choices
     
    If it was the case that "Americans understood . . .that Nazi Germany was the greater civilizational threat . . . and were capable of making the right choices," why was it necessary for the Roosevelt administration to carry on a multi-year long campaign of lies, propaganda, character assassination, illegal acts, and even the ludicrous fire side chat involving a map that demonstrated that the Germans intended to invade USA from Mexico and march all the way to Washington, DC?

    If the case was so powerful, why the need to lie?

    Last but not least -- Herbert Hoover spent about an hour face-to-face w/ Hitler & Goring in 1938 (around March, iirc). He came away disliking Hitler's arrogance but convinced that Hitler was no threat to USA, and that it would be sheer folly for France or Britain, much less the USA, to get involved in a fight w/ Germany. NSDAP's agenda was eastward, Hoover insisted, and if Hitler & Stalin were let alone to fight each other to exhaustion, a century of peace would ensue. Neville Chamberlain and most of the diplomats that Hoover met with also agreed. FDR would not meet with Hoover, and Hoover's "good friend, Bernard Baruch," would not intermediate a meeting.

    , @chris

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.
     
    kidding, right ?
    Let's see,
    1. following the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939, Germany invaded half of Poland
    2. in return, France and England declared war on Germany
    3. 16 days later Russia invaded Poland
    (this is usually called a "set-up")

    You do know that by the time Hitler had even come to power, Stalin had already killed Millions of Russians and Ukrainians ?

    Please try to dispute these points if you want to but if you don't, how comes you to claim that:
    1. Germany was a greater threat than Russia
    2. the "Americans back then understood" this
    , @Bill Jones
    Well done son.

    I do like smartly crafted satire.

    Please play again soon.
  83. koolz says:

    To understand zionist veiw against Russia you should go here.
    http://Www.tomatobubble.com

    But to sum it up Russia and Putin are the one’s stopping the satanic NWO.

    They are orthodox christian’s. And do not follow the Talmud like the necon zionist NWO.

    Read More
  84. Perhaps what the US is yearning for and preparing for is the best that we, the rest of the World can hope for. A final end to American supremacy with the total destruction of the US and of course Russia, may be the ultimate result of decades of provocation, insults, sanctions, military threats, lies, intimidation and other unfathomable actions that the US has taken against Russia. I’m actually surprised that Putin is so patient and diplomatic. Too bad, so sad, but we have had a good run. Maybe the next species on planet Earth once the radiation has diminished will do better.

    Read More
  85. @Cyrano
    You got it man, Stalin and Hitler were the same and only US was morally superior to them both, which allowed them to make a decision free from any influence to ally themselves with the ones they have nothing in common with in terms of culture or shared values – the Russians.

    Your story of Poland exchanging one occupier with another is bogus too. Russia liberated Poland from Germany. Or maybe according to your logic Germany pre-emptively liberated Poland from Russia, anticipating that Stalin would occupy them after WWII?

    If Stalin was equal to Hitler how come the Americans choose Stalin as an ally, when they are culturally closer to Germany, even - or maybe especially – to the Nazi Germany than they are to Russia.

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.

    WWII era Americans were capable of making the right choices and judging by what is going on today, they are no longer able of doing that. That’s why you’re ending up with Hilary or Trump as the next president. Some democracy you have over there.

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism.

    Which explains why Woodrow Wilson sent US forces to Siberia in 1918 – 1920 in an attempt to eradicate Bolshevism.

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.
    WWII era Americans were capable of making the right choices

    If it was the case that “Americans understood . . .that Nazi Germany was the greater civilizational threat . . . and were capable of making the right choices,” why was it necessary for the Roosevelt administration to carry on a multi-year long campaign of lies, propaganda, character assassination, illegal acts, and even the ludicrous fire side chat involving a map that demonstrated that the Germans intended to invade USA from Mexico and march all the way to Washington, DC?

    If the case was so powerful, why the need to lie?

    Last but not least — Herbert Hoover spent about an hour face-to-face w/ Hitler & Goring in 1938 (around March, iirc). He came away disliking Hitler’s arrogance but convinced that Hitler was no threat to USA, and that it would be sheer folly for France or Britain, much less the USA, to get involved in a fight w/ Germany. NSDAP’s agenda was eastward, Hoover insisted, and if Hitler & Stalin were let alone to fight each other to exhaustion, a century of peace would ensue. Neville Chamberlain and most of the diplomats that Hoover met with also agreed. FDR would not meet with Hoover, and Hoover’s “good friend, Bernard Baruch,” would not intermediate a meeting.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Oh boy, you know how to turn any argument into a mess, don’t you? In 1918 Woodrow Wilson intervened in the Russian Revolution because at that time Communism was a number one threat – in US opinion. There was no Nazism back then to choose between the two which one is a greater threat.

    In 1939 there was two to choose from: Nazism or Communism. US made the right choice. Stay with me on this one. In 1979 again there was a choice to be made – between Communism and Islam. US made the wrong choice this time and they are paying the price ever since and it looks like they’re going to continue to pay for that wrong choice for some time to come.

    US likes to play those games. When they have two options - they choose the more likeable against the less likable and then they deal with the outcome by turning against the original “ally”. But that’s the game of the weak, because if you dislike both choices – go against both of them, or go against the one that you dislike more – but alone, without making the other one an ally, because you’re going to strengthen them and then you would have to deal with them later when they come out as a winner side by side with you.

    Do you understand what I am trying to say here? You are not going to win any argument with me. You might know more useless facts than I do, but my logic is superior to yours. Have a nice day.
    , @5371
    [Which explains why Woodrow Wilson sent US forces to Siberia in 1918 – 1920 in an attempt to eradicate Bolshevism.]

    Actually it was much more an attempt to warn the Japanese off from exploiting the situation.
  86. @Mark Green
    The neocon hatred of Putin's Russia is tied to Russia's steadfast alliance with Iran and Syria. Israel wants that alliance shattered.

    Israel is still technically at war with Syria, and Israel has no intention of returning to Syria the land (Golan Heights) that Israel grabbed from Syria in its preemptive Six Day War (1967).

    As for Iran, the relations between Tel Aviv and Tehran could not be worse. And Russia not only trades with both Syria and Iran, but Moscow supplies these two anti-Zionist countries with all the weapons (and training) necessary to repel an Israeli attack. Russia and Israel are in the midst of a very cold war. This is why Washington is now in a cold war with Russia--to fortify Israel.

    Thus Washington has worked hard to topple Syria's Assad--even if it means funding ISIS and/or Al Queda. This is due to the simple fact that, in Official Washington, Israeli interests invariably trump all other concerns.

    And Israel wants Syria, Iran and their patron, Russia, weakened--if not ruined.

    These assorted, crypto-Zionist objectives are what propelled Washington into its wars against Iraq and Libya. Those weak, distant nations posed no threat to US security, but they did potentially threaten Zionist aspirations. And it's Israeli security/hegemony that most animates Washington's intervention reflex. So Washington attacked.

    US 'nation-building' is often a euphemism for Zionist-friendly nation-destroying.

    Thus, to keep Israel safe, Deep State operatives throughout Washington remain committed to toppling Syria's Assad.

    Assad must be replaced with either 1) a more compliant regime vis-a-vis Israel, or 2) a nation forever divided and forever weak, like today's post-Saddam Iraq.

    These objectives explain why Russia and Iran (along with Syria) are targeted for marginalization, sanction, and isolation. 'Regime change' (political transformation by whatever means necessary) is a core neocon objective. It seeks to target all nations that threaten Israel.

    Thus, US Mideast policies now reflect the aspirations of the Zionist mega-donors (Adelson, Sabin), our two corrupt major Parties, countless Israel-centric think tanks and other NGOs, and the dominant, pro-Zionist international media.

    What has this cabal of undue influence managed to accomplish?

    Israel's foes have become America's foes.

    This is a stunning achievement.

    And right now it is Putin's Russia that is standing in the way of Syria's 'transformation'.

    Putin, remember, managed to keep US forces at bay when it looked as if Obama was about to initiate a major bombing campaign there to "protect the (anti-Assad) rebels". For his daring diplomacy, Putin deserves honor. He not only saved US lives, but helped avert a potentially major confrontation involving US and Russian forces. But instead of respect, Putin (in America) is reviled.

    Why?

    Putin frustrated Israel's long-sought regime-change for Syria.

    Assad's Syria--along with Iran, Russia and even Lebanon-- are far too independent for the comfort of global Zionists. Thus, Washington is on the offense against these recalcitrant nations.

    In Official Washington, all anti-Israel states must be sanctioned, embargoed, or bombed. This is how Zio-Washington rolls.

    “Assad’s Syria–along with Iran, Russia and even Lebanon–are far too independent for the comfort of global Zionists. Thus, Washington is on the offense against these recalcitrant nations.

    “In Official Washington, all anti-Israel states must be sanctioned, embargoed, or bombed. This is how Zio-Washington rolls.”

    Need we say more?

    Read More
  87. Bayan says:
    @Kiza
    Another important point that very few citizens understand is that if a nuclear war starts, every country with nuclear weapons will launch at some target, under use it or lose it. The US nuclear missile targeting list from the sixties (from the time of Cuban missile crisis) included targets in both USSR and China, although these two countries were killing each other's border guards at the time, how friendly they were. This was revealed by a retired US nuclear missile forces officer (USAF) who was stationed in Japan. They received a spurious order to launch and he was shocked to discover Chinese cities in the target list given.

    Return to present and consider that now that Russia and China are strategic partners, would not the US aim for targets in China as well. Then consider that China probably has targets in India and India has targets in Pakistan. Get the picture?

    There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war, if the US launches a strike, everybody else will too: Russia, Israel, China, India, Pakistan, UK, France. It will be one big global fireworks to celebrate the end of human kind. The dinosaurs went away without such a goodbye party.

    Now I do not believe that even war-mad/crazy Hillary wants a global nuclear war, but she may play the game of chicken - I am too crazy to oppose, we will all die if I do not get my way. Would you rather lose Syria or we all die? Would you rather lose Siberia or we all die? And even if she does not play such stupid game of chicken, when two armies are face-to-face now that the US is establishing divisions and anti-missile bases on the Russia's border, there is always a chance of someone getting carried away, a mentally disturbed individual, someone under the influence accidentally starting a conflict leading to the big fireworks. Because those who play with matches, end up burning their house. There is no place for the US military at the Russia's border or in the South China Sea.

    Scary. All this for what?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I am not sure what you are referring to, but for my money these power and wealth hungry psychopaths are playing with our lives as if they were just gambling chips in a casino (How do you feel as a worthless piece of plastic?)

    The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is one of the most useless documents in human history, used to keep the nuclear monopoly in the hands of the mentioned psychopaths. The US is the biggest abuser of the NNPT by openly modernizing its nuclear arsenal at a starting cost of at least $1T, followed by Israel which never even signed it, all the while both endlessly crapping about Iran. Russia, Britain and France are also abusing the NNPT by modernizing their bombs and delivery systems, instead if reducing and getting rid of them completely as per NNPT they signed.

    The goal is to retain the nuclear monopoly for terrorizing and pillaging whoever you want to.
    , @Carroll Price

    Scary. All this for what?
     
    Jewish domination of the world, as prophesized by the Elders of Zion .
  88. conatus says:

    Here is a link with the American Ambassador to Russia discussing the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ we broke.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/former-u-s-ambassador-to-the-soviet-union-the-u-s-and-nato-are-provoking-the-ukrainian-crisis/5399602

    Aren’t we the original bad faith actors in this drama? Didn’t Clinton dishonor a ‘gentleman’s agreement” with Gorbachev, crafted during the reuniting of Germany. At the time the Russians were negotiating from a position of strength, they had 350,000 troops in Europe. Yet they agreed to let Germany reunite if we agreed not to expand NATO!
    How well have we honored our end of this bargain? I think there are six more NATO members, all of whom bear a historical brief against the Russians.
    Talk about Janus-faced Capitalistas!

    Why did the US whine about the Monroe doctrine if there is no need of buffer states? I know Kerry declared it dead but we were squealing as late as the 90s. Does anyone seriously think we would let Al Qaeda take over Cuba?
    It is easy to make moral pronouncements when you have two huge oceans between you and everyone else, not so easy if they are right across some little river.

    Isn’t there a double standard going on here? We invoke the Monroe doctrine to keep Russian missiles from our borders but we can get so close via NATO, the Russian bear’s hairs tickle our nose?

    Remember the Monroe doctrine which Kennedy cited in 1962 over the Cuban Missile Crisis? Look at it from Putin’s point of view, this noose of NATO is tightening around Mother Russia, when Gorbachev had an implicit guarantee it wouldn’t.

    From a 2009 NYT article, by Mary Elise Sarotte, Enlarging Nato, Expanding Confusion, discussing the ‘gentleman’s agreement’ that Gorbachev understood as meaning no NATO expansion, applying to his agreeing to German reunification.

    NYT says “Did the United States betray Russia at the dawn of the post-cold war era? The short answer is no. Nothing legally binding emerged from the negotiations over German unification. In fact, in September 1990, an embattled Mr. Gorbachev signed the accords that allowed NATO to extend itself over the former East Germany in exchange for financial assistance from Bonn to Moscow. A longer answer, however, shows that there were mixed messages and diplomatic ambiguities.

    By acknowledging that there might be some substance to Russian grievances, the Obama administration would strengthen our relations with Moscow. Given that NATO enlargement has already taken place and efforts for further expansion are stalled, little would be lost with such an acknowledgment but much could be gained.” Unquote

    Read More
  89. chris says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Is Avery going to kick the Ziocaine addiction and take the red pill soon?

    re Kiza --


    The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews, but they are a much easier target than the Germans, plus see number one above – the gain.
     
    and Avery's Blue Pill version of WWII:

    Not only that, but Russians have zero guilt feelings towards Jews, unlike Western Europeans (and Germans of course): unlike them, who collaborated with Nazis in the roundup and mass murder of Jews, the Red Army saved European Jewry from total extermination by Nazis. Russians know what they did, and are absolutely immune to the guilt trip.
     
    How quaint. What Russians know is that they can get away with having outsourced their Jewish problem as long as they can maintain the evil-Nazi-Hitler-holocaust- narrative in secula seculorum. amen.

    Assay these elements of the Red Pill compound:

    Jews starting leaving Russia for Germany and Austria in the 1880s -- THE HASKALAH MOVEMENT IN RUSSIA, by Jacob Raisin, c 1913

    The quirky, Christian character of the German people induced most of them to accept the increasingly mass- and burdensome- migration of Russian Jews into Germany -- (deja vu). Herr Stocker, however, took a German nationalist position, for which he was tagged a -- gasp -- antisemite in this snide article from New York Times dated July 28, 1881:

    Herr Stocker and the Jews,


    "It is as a Christian [and a patriot] that [Stocker] now protests against the . . .active sympathy of certain Germans with the victims of the Jew-baiting in Russia. "Let people," he says, "in Christian mercy take pity on the persecuted; that is noble, and corresponds to the teachings of the Gospel. But it is indefensible that Germans should raise a cry for the protection of the Russian Jews, and so belie the efforts of their own countrymen to [defend themselves against exploitation by Jewish money-men who have been oppressing the German middle-class since unification]."
     
    Avery wrote:

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties.
     
    Even fewer people are aware that in the years immediately after Unification and all the way through the Weimar period, Germany was just as much a depot for Jewish immigrants from Poland and Russia as it is today from MENA, with the added burden that in the WWI and post-war years, Germany was blockaded and deliberately starved by Allied forces.

    As German ambassador to USA Hans Luther observed in May 1933:


    "He [Luther] asserted that limitation of Jewish influence in Germany was being conducted with the greatest possible consideration toward the old native Jewish families who, he said; had proven themselves good Germans and indicated that it was directed against the Eastern European Jews who had overflooded the country since the War. . . .

    Dr. Luther described the misery of German students who had to wait for years after graduating in order to obtain positions in the professions. Even before the War, he said, the legal and medical professions in Berlin, Frankfurt and other large cities were almost monopolized by certain people whose activities the German people could not consider as German.

    After the War, came the influx of East European Jews, he declared. Because of Germany’s political prostration, there was no means of excluding undesirable immigrants such as other nations had. "
    http://www.jta.org/1933/05/26/archive/nazi-jewish-policies-political-not-religious-dr-luther-asserts
     

    By the time this article was published by the Jewish Telegraph Agency, the Jewish-led economic boycott of Germany, intended to "bring Germany to its knees," was in full-gear: Germany was simultaneously the dumping-ground for hundreds of thousands of Jews fleeing Russia; was required to pay reparations while recovering from the starvation-deaths of 800,000 German citizens and the loss of millions of German men in WWI; was in political turmoil post-revolution; and was subject to an international boycott by Jews!

    Finally, this from Avery:


    Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading USSR, Europe would be German occupied to this day, and not a single European Jew would be left alive there.
     
    riiiiigght.
    Things worked out so much better, especially for the Polish people, with Stalin and the Communists running the show for the next fifty years.

    Take the opposite scenario: What if the Wehrmacht had not held Russian forces back, to the extent that they did, from invading the whole of Europe? The Communist occupation of Eastern Europe provides real-life evidence of what could have befallen the rest of Europe, but for Germany's defense of "civilization." The price that Truman and Churchill negotiated for containing Stalin in Poland was Dresden.

    As for Jews -- they were the major beneficiaries and victors of both WWI and WWII: pretty cool arrangement considering they fielded no armies therefore incurred no pension obligations, no generation of wounded and disabled veterans. Jews realized major financial profits -- Bernard Baruch alone made a billion or more in war profits. Jews gained entry privileges to USA that vastly exceeded the numbers of any other group, European or anybody else, and they acquired US taxpayer subsidies to aid in their resettlement, a benefit granted to no other immigrant group.

    And Jews cemented their hold on Palestine.
    The British lost an empire; Germany lost millions of people and large amounts of territory; even France lost 70,000 civilians to Allied air raids and a significant Italian heritage site, Monte Cassino, was bombed.
    But Jews gained permanent possession of someone else's land and the protection of major world powers to keep and expand it.
    While Allied terror bombers were reducing Germany to rubble and incinerating at least 600,000 German civilians and destroying 75% of Germany's civilian infrastructure & historic legacy, Jews spent the 1930s and 1940s in a building boom in Palestine, simultaneous with the in-gathering of the Diaspora (consistent with tenets of zionism as enunciated by Vladimir Jabotinsky in a 1935 letter, as well as David Ben Gurion's 1937 letter to his son), in which migratory activity zionists were assisted by the NSDAP.

    Avery old chap, the "Jews as perpetual victim" schtick is old; it's belied by the facts on the ground. Regurgitating it makes you look stupid.

    The quirky, Christian character of the German people induced most of them to accept the increasingly mass- and burdensome- migration of Russian Jews into Germany — (deja vu)

    That and just a little bit of extra, behind the scenes, inducement ! Fritz Stern in his book “Gold and Iron” says that Bismark was induced to take them in return for Bleichroder (ye ole jewish banker) bailing out a big pension fund.

    The modus operandi remains the same, it just takes a couple of years to find out what the carrot was.

    Read More
  90. @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    because the Bolshevik jews declared war on Russia 100 years ago as they did on Germany. after killing tens of millions they want more blood

    Read More
  91. @Avery
    {The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews}

    Not only that, but Russians have zero guilt feelings towards Jews, unlike Western Europeans (and Germans of course): unlike them, who collaborated with Nazis in the roundup and mass murder of Jews, the Red Army saved European Jewry from total extermination by Nazis. Russians know what they did, and are absolutely immune to the guilt trip.

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties.

    Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading USSR, Europe would be German occupied to this day, and not a single European Jew would be left alive there.

    avery you purposely left out the fact that jewish Bolsheviks killed 60 million russians

    Read More
  92. chris says:
    @Cyrano
    You got it man, Stalin and Hitler were the same and only US was morally superior to them both, which allowed them to make a decision free from any influence to ally themselves with the ones they have nothing in common with in terms of culture or shared values – the Russians.

    Your story of Poland exchanging one occupier with another is bogus too. Russia liberated Poland from Germany. Or maybe according to your logic Germany pre-emptively liberated Poland from Russia, anticipating that Stalin would occupy them after WWII?

    If Stalin was equal to Hitler how come the Americans choose Stalin as an ally, when they are culturally closer to Germany, even - or maybe especially – to the Nazi Germany than they are to Russia.

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.

    WWII era Americans were capable of making the right choices and judging by what is going on today, they are no longer able of doing that. That’s why you’re ending up with Hilary or Trump as the next president. Some democracy you have over there.

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.

    kidding, right ?
    Let’s see,
    1. following the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939, Germany invaded half of Poland
    2. in return, France and England declared war on Germany
    3. 16 days later Russia invaded Poland
    (this is usually called a “set-up”)

    You do know that by the time Hitler had even come to power, Stalin had already killed Millions of Russians and Ukrainians ?

    Please try to dispute these points if you want to but if you don’t, how comes you to claim that:
    1. Germany was a greater threat than Russia
    2. the “Americans back then understood” this

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    In 1939 the world allied against Germany, not against Russia. Which part of this you don't understand? If Russia was the bigger threat they would have allied against them. Capisce?
    , @Fandrich
    Even my college professor of ethics, who was a Jew and a totally decent man, told our class one day that the reason the U.S. and England turned on Hitler, was because he was ignoring the International Banking system and as a result Germany became the richest nation on earth at the time, while Americans were waiting in soup lines. The bankers did not want a system like this to gain popularity all through Europe and possibly the world. So , they set up Germany's total destruction. They felt they could do the same with the Soviet Union next.
  93. Cyrano says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism.
     
    Which explains why Woodrow Wilson sent US forces to Siberia in 1918 - 1920 in an attempt to eradicate Bolshevism.

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.
    WWII era Americans were capable of making the right choices
     
    If it was the case that "Americans understood . . .that Nazi Germany was the greater civilizational threat . . . and were capable of making the right choices," why was it necessary for the Roosevelt administration to carry on a multi-year long campaign of lies, propaganda, character assassination, illegal acts, and even the ludicrous fire side chat involving a map that demonstrated that the Germans intended to invade USA from Mexico and march all the way to Washington, DC?

    If the case was so powerful, why the need to lie?

    Last but not least -- Herbert Hoover spent about an hour face-to-face w/ Hitler & Goring in 1938 (around March, iirc). He came away disliking Hitler's arrogance but convinced that Hitler was no threat to USA, and that it would be sheer folly for France or Britain, much less the USA, to get involved in a fight w/ Germany. NSDAP's agenda was eastward, Hoover insisted, and if Hitler & Stalin were let alone to fight each other to exhaustion, a century of peace would ensue. Neville Chamberlain and most of the diplomats that Hoover met with also agreed. FDR would not meet with Hoover, and Hoover's "good friend, Bernard Baruch," would not intermediate a meeting.

    Oh boy, you know how to turn any argument into a mess, don’t you? In 1918 Woodrow Wilson intervened in the Russian Revolution because at that time Communism was a number one threat – in US opinion. There was no Nazism back then to choose between the two which one is a greater threat.

    In 1939 there was two to choose from: Nazism or Communism. US made the right choice. Stay with me on this one. In 1979 again there was a choice to be made – between Communism and Islam. US made the wrong choice this time and they are paying the price ever since and it looks like they’re going to continue to pay for that wrong choice for some time to come.

    US likes to play those games. When they have two options – they choose the more likeable against the less likable and then they deal with the outcome by turning against the original “ally”. But that’s the game of the weak, because if you dislike both choices – go against both of them, or go against the one that you dislike more – but alone, without making the other one an ally, because you’re going to strengthen them and then you would have to deal with them later when they come out as a winner side by side with you.

    Do you understand what I am trying to say here? You are not going to win any argument with me. You might know more useless facts than I do, but my logic is superior to yours. Have a nice day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Apply that superior logic to answering this, Cyrano: in what way was Nazism so threatening to the USA, Jan. 1933 - Jan 1939, that a war was the only option? Or to Britain or France in the same time frame?

    Be precise.

    The question is important because, as Phil Giraldi points out, the USA is drumming up the same kind of war fever against Russia -- we all want to learn from history, don't we?

  94. @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.
    Read More
  95. @anonymous
    I like the thinking behind saying that the slaughterhouse we created in Iraq didn't 'seriously injure' the US. Although it cost many billions well, just print some more money since apparently it's limitless. For our dead and disabled they got their medals, survivor's benefits, plastic surgery, prostheses and disability payments; now go away. As for the actual residents of the areas we've touched down in there's been life changing devastation; hundreds of thousands dead, homes and livelihoods destroyed, millions transformed into desperate, pauperized refugees. Everywhere the US goes the Grim Reaper follows. But if it's not playing out in the streets of America then it doesn't matter. I don't see any Americans, aside from a relatively small number, actually show any concern for the misery we've unleashed on smaller, weaker nations. They're lesser, inferior people who probably had it coming anyway is the thinking when they bother to think at all; injured dog stories garner more attention. What can be done with such an apathetic, indifferent public?
    The anti-Putin, anti-Russian propaganda machine is in high gear 24/7, cranking it out. One has to hand it to them, they certainly cover all bases. This drive towards confrontation and war puzzles people since much of it seems to be reckless and irrational. Is there some inner locomotive pushing all this regardless of whether we have Bush the moral cretin or the wondrous Nobel Peace Prize winner as president? Is it just the stupidity of the groupthink of supposedly smart people? Thanatos? Whatever it is it needs to be curbed in some way lest we all be dragged into disaster.

    The number of Iraqi dead is somewhere north of 2.3 million.

    Read More
  96. @Cyrano
    You got it man, Stalin and Hitler were the same and only US was morally superior to them both, which allowed them to make a decision free from any influence to ally themselves with the ones they have nothing in common with in terms of culture or shared values – the Russians.

    Your story of Poland exchanging one occupier with another is bogus too. Russia liberated Poland from Germany. Or maybe according to your logic Germany pre-emptively liberated Poland from Russia, anticipating that Stalin would occupy them after WWII?

    If Stalin was equal to Hitler how come the Americans choose Stalin as an ally, when they are culturally closer to Germany, even - or maybe especially – to the Nazi Germany than they are to Russia.

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.

    WWII era Americans were capable of making the right choices and judging by what is going on today, they are no longer able of doing that. That’s why you’re ending up with Hilary or Trump as the next president. Some democracy you have over there.

    Well done son.

    I do like smartly crafted satire.

    Please play again soon.

    Read More
  97. Cyrano says:
    @chris

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.
     
    kidding, right ?
    Let's see,
    1. following the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939, Germany invaded half of Poland
    2. in return, France and England declared war on Germany
    3. 16 days later Russia invaded Poland
    (this is usually called a "set-up")

    You do know that by the time Hitler had even come to power, Stalin had already killed Millions of Russians and Ukrainians ?

    Please try to dispute these points if you want to but if you don't, how comes you to claim that:
    1. Germany was a greater threat than Russia
    2. the "Americans back then understood" this

    In 1939 the world allied against Germany, not against Russia. Which part of this you don’t understand? If Russia was the bigger threat they would have allied against them. Capisce?

    Read More
    • Replies: @chris
    all you're saying is that whoever resides at the other end of our gun barrel is ipso facto our biggest threat.
    'if we fought them, they must have been our biggest threat'
    But then it's pointless to discuss anything, isn't it?
  98. There’s a trillion-plus nuke upgrade to be justified. That requires one heck of a dire threat. It’s nuclear poker, double or nothing. And there are no limits. War is big business, the biggest of all. Winner take all.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Yesterday I opened the water bill and it contained a notice that the water company had not been using the proper chemicals to prevent corrosion of the pipes, thus there might be lead in the water.



    Maybe DHS could drop a nuclear bomb on the plumbing lines under our streets?

    Should TSA run their machines over our water before it is poured into a glass to drink?
  99. @Cyrano
    Oh boy, you know how to turn any argument into a mess, don’t you? In 1918 Woodrow Wilson intervened in the Russian Revolution because at that time Communism was a number one threat – in US opinion. There was no Nazism back then to choose between the two which one is a greater threat.

    In 1939 there was two to choose from: Nazism or Communism. US made the right choice. Stay with me on this one. In 1979 again there was a choice to be made – between Communism and Islam. US made the wrong choice this time and they are paying the price ever since and it looks like they’re going to continue to pay for that wrong choice for some time to come.

    US likes to play those games. When they have two options - they choose the more likeable against the less likable and then they deal with the outcome by turning against the original “ally”. But that’s the game of the weak, because if you dislike both choices – go against both of them, or go against the one that you dislike more – but alone, without making the other one an ally, because you’re going to strengthen them and then you would have to deal with them later when they come out as a winner side by side with you.

    Do you understand what I am trying to say here? You are not going to win any argument with me. You might know more useless facts than I do, but my logic is superior to yours. Have a nice day.

    Apply that superior logic to answering this, Cyrano: in what way was Nazism so threatening to the USA, Jan. 1933 – Jan 1939, that a war was the only option? Or to Britain or France in the same time frame?

    Be precise.

    The question is important because, as Phil Giraldi points out, the USA is drumming up the same kind of war fever against Russia — we all want to learn from history, don’t we?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    You should actually know the answer to this one. The way you postulated your question whether the war against Nazi Germany 1933-1939 was unavoidable is like the choice was up to the Western Powers to make. It wasn’t. Germany made that decision for them and yes - it was unavoidable. I know, technically France and Britain declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, but they didn’t actually attack Germany I guess out of fear that they might hurt some German sensibilities.

    Remember the “Phony War”? Then Germany decided to put some reality into the “Phony war” by actually attacking France and Britain with total disregard as to whether they are going to hurt their feelings or not. As for the US, again it was Germany who declared war on them, not the other way around, so again, US had no choice there at all.

    As for the current tensions with Russia, I don’t think that they will lead to war. It’s just a result of a failed Neocon plan to wrestle Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit. The problem with the Neocons is that not only their original scripts are awful, but when they come up with a sequel script – that’s not an Oscar winning material either. Remember Iraq invasion in 2003? The original rationale was WMD, when that didn’t pan out, then it was pure western humanism on display. They did it to remove a dictator and finally bring democracy to the yearning masses. How noble.

    According to the Neocon manifesto, the post cold war objective of US is to prevent re-emergence of any challenger to American supremacy either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere. Just because Zbig said that the only thing missing from making Russia a superpower again is Ukraine doesn’t make it an irrefutable truth. What does Zbig know about anything. He still says that the choice US made in 1979 was the right one. Tell that to the 9/11 victims. Forget about suing SA for 9/11. Sue Zbig, it was that degenerate’s idea that started the whole thing.
  100. Pagoda says:
    @Marcus
    It's ok to hate Russia (stupidly portrayed as neo-czarist by apoplectic homosexual/jewish warhawnks) now according to the media, we were supposed to at least have some sympathy for the USSR due to the nobility of communism.

    Indeed. And it was a bit more than sympathy.

    Read More
  101. Despite what history has shown happens to all conceited nations, we (most Americans) do not believe they will suffer divine justice for either their hubris or ignorance. Even if their party does not end in a nuclear wasteland, the moral rot, social anarchy, and creeping totolitarinism is the price being paid right now by “regular Americans” for their acquiescence to this corruption.

    Read More
  102. chris says:
    @Cyrano
    In 1939 the world allied against Germany, not against Russia. Which part of this you don't understand? If Russia was the bigger threat they would have allied against them. Capisce?

    all you’re saying is that whoever resides at the other end of our gun barrel is ipso facto our biggest threat.
    ‘if we fought them, they must have been our biggest threat’
    But then it’s pointless to discuss anything, isn’t it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    You are right man. Every person that ever ended at the wrong end of the gun was innocent. This is due to the schizophrenic human nature. There is no rational way to explain how humans choose their enemies. Mostly it is first we kill them, then we feel remorse and analyze the causes and effect in reverse and come to the conclusion that since there are now dead how possibly can they have ever been an enemy and a threat to us. Does my argument make any sense to you? No? Well, now you know how I feel when I read your comments.
  103. Cyrano says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Apply that superior logic to answering this, Cyrano: in what way was Nazism so threatening to the USA, Jan. 1933 - Jan 1939, that a war was the only option? Or to Britain or France in the same time frame?

    Be precise.

    The question is important because, as Phil Giraldi points out, the USA is drumming up the same kind of war fever against Russia -- we all want to learn from history, don't we?

    You should actually know the answer to this one. The way you postulated your question whether the war against Nazi Germany 1933-1939 was unavoidable is like the choice was up to the Western Powers to make. It wasn’t. Germany made that decision for them and yes – it was unavoidable. I know, technically France and Britain declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, but they didn’t actually attack Germany I guess out of fear that they might hurt some German sensibilities.

    Remember the “Phony War”? Then Germany decided to put some reality into the “Phony war” by actually attacking France and Britain with total disregard as to whether they are going to hurt their feelings or not. As for the US, again it was Germany who declared war on them, not the other way around, so again, US had no choice there at all.

    As for the current tensions with Russia, I don’t think that they will lead to war. It’s just a result of a failed Neocon plan to wrestle Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit. The problem with the Neocons is that not only their original scripts are awful, but when they come up with a sequel script – that’s not an Oscar winning material either. Remember Iraq invasion in 2003? The original rationale was WMD, when that didn’t pan out, then it was pure western humanism on display. They did it to remove a dictator and finally bring democracy to the yearning masses. How noble.

    According to the Neocon manifesto, the post cold war objective of US is to prevent re-emergence of any challenger to American supremacy either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere. Just because Zbig said that the only thing missing from making Russia a superpower again is Ukraine doesn’t make it an irrefutable truth. What does Zbig know about anything. He still says that the choice US made in 1979 was the right one. Tell that to the 9/11 victims. Forget about suing SA for 9/11. Sue Zbig, it was that degenerate’s idea that started the whole thing.

    Read More
    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    You did not answer the question.

    In what way was Nazism so threatening to the USA, Jan. 1933 – Jan 1939, that a war was the only option?

    What was the precise casus belli?

    Keep in mind this bit of logic from Tim Snyder, PhD:

    In history you can’t really say something happened in 1933 because something was going to happen in 1945. You can only explain things that happened in 1933 by events up to and including 1933. It’s very tempting to apply later events . . . but we can only understand historical events in terms of the causes that bring them about. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcXMV-4HfXs
     
    Also bear in mind what was published in a British newspaper March 24, 1933. and later in multiple newspapers throughout the world, that "Judea Declares War on Germany."

    What was the casus belli in March 1933?
    , @annamaria
    "As for the current tensions with Russia, I don’t think that they will lead to war. It’s just a result of a failed Neocon plan to wrestle Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit."

    This is a very optimist opinion. Unfortunately, a charged gun could discharge (almost) by accident when in irresponsible hands. We have been conditioned for the inevitable showdown by the powerful self-aggrandizing lunatics, their presstitutes, and the eager crowd of obliging opportunists.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Love the convenient and emotional labeling of the UK and France as "the Western Powers." So Germany was not a Western civilization and culture?

    The label "Western Powers" grouping US together with UK and France, seems merely to ASSUME that the US should have intervened, and intervened on the side it did -- with the effect of devastating Germany and helping the Soviet Communists subjugate the people of central and eastern Europe quite as brutally as the Nazis did or would have.

    The US should have stayed out of WW2. Nobody has even come close to demonstrating any reasonable chance that Germany would have been able to effectively occupy and pacify a vast Russian territory and somehow still attack the USA.
  104. […] Baltic Russians No Fifth Column Despite Discrimination. 27. The Unz Review: Philip Giraldi, How the World Ends. Baiting Russia is not good policy. 28. Carnegie Moscow Center: Andrei Kolesnikov, Don’t Rock the Boat: How Long Can Putin Avoid […]

    Read More
  105. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    American Television features many so-called Christian,
    or Messianic Jewish commentary programs pushing Russia as
    the prophetic bad guy.
    One preacher says that Russia is Edom, or Esau’s descendants, and
    that Russia fulfills prophecy scenarios of “invaders from the north”
    while ignoring Turkey’s history and current darkness.
    The Almighty, The Most High Heavenly Father, it is said in scripture,
    loved Jacob, but hated Esau….
    So now we see the masses of
    Wishfullly Thinking American sleepy-brains, po-jama people, as Zappa said,
    are going along with the brain-entraining TeeVee propaganda.
    Chernobyl is a word which translates to “Wormwood”,
    and even the Gideon’s of the Gideon’s Bible organization have fallen for
    the dumb-down translation called “ESV” which omits this important,
    prophetic word.
    Please see Jeremiah 9. a King James Bible is best. Please Read the chapter.
    Note Jeremiah 9:15– Wormwood is Chernobyl.
    Now please understand that this is descriptive, and the “type” of
    the events at Fukushima, Mayak, Three mile Island, Hanford, Santa Susana,
    Wormwood.
    Why can we not hear the children playing?
    Death came in our windows.
    Because of their iniquity.

    Read More
  106. 5371 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism.
     
    Which explains why Woodrow Wilson sent US forces to Siberia in 1918 - 1920 in an attempt to eradicate Bolshevism.

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.
    WWII era Americans were capable of making the right choices
     
    If it was the case that "Americans understood . . .that Nazi Germany was the greater civilizational threat . . . and were capable of making the right choices," why was it necessary for the Roosevelt administration to carry on a multi-year long campaign of lies, propaganda, character assassination, illegal acts, and even the ludicrous fire side chat involving a map that demonstrated that the Germans intended to invade USA from Mexico and march all the way to Washington, DC?

    If the case was so powerful, why the need to lie?

    Last but not least -- Herbert Hoover spent about an hour face-to-face w/ Hitler & Goring in 1938 (around March, iirc). He came away disliking Hitler's arrogance but convinced that Hitler was no threat to USA, and that it would be sheer folly for France or Britain, much less the USA, to get involved in a fight w/ Germany. NSDAP's agenda was eastward, Hoover insisted, and if Hitler & Stalin were let alone to fight each other to exhaustion, a century of peace would ensue. Neville Chamberlain and most of the diplomats that Hoover met with also agreed. FDR would not meet with Hoover, and Hoover's "good friend, Bernard Baruch," would not intermediate a meeting.

    [Which explains why Woodrow Wilson sent US forces to Siberia in 1918 – 1920 in an attempt to eradicate Bolshevism.]

    Actually it was much more an attempt to warn the Japanese off from exploiting the situation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    StoC:

    Wilson sent US forces to Siberia in 1918 – 1920 in an attempt to eradicate Bolshevism.
     
    5371:

    "Actually it was much more an attempt to warn the Japanese off from exploiting the situation."
     

     
    According to Carl J. Richard, professor of history at the University of Louisiana,

    Wilson’s original intent was to enable Czechs and anti-Bolshevik Russians to rebuild the Eastern Front against the Central Powers. But Wilson continued the intervention for a year and a half after the armistice in order to overthrow the Bolsheviks and to prevent the Japanese from absorbing eastern Siberia. . . .
    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.
     
    http://www.amazon.com/When-United-States-Invaded-Russia/dp/1442219890?ie=UTF8&keywords=when%20the%20united%20states%20invaded%20russia%20woodrow%20wilson%27s%20siberian%20disaster&qid=1464301375&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1
  107. Kiza says:
    @Anonymous
    I wonder in what kind of scenario a nuclear exchange ends in only severe destruction to U.S.?

    Another thing that most people do not appreciate is that the humanity does not really know the effect of turning the surface of the Earth into the surface of the Sun for a couple of hours. There is even a theory that the Earth’s atmosphere could pop out like a balloon into the inter-planetary space after so many of its molecules get hyper-accelerated. Scientists are biased in favor of a linear behavior because this approach is so popular for the purpose of simplification of natural phenomena (and simulations). This is why they look at individual nuclear test explosions and just multiply, but the nature’s response to the persistent nuclear explosions could be an exponential phenomenon: pops out the atmosphere, changes the rotation of the planet, the inclination of its axis.

    To come closer to your question, there is a strong advantage on the side which does the First Strike. If Russia were to attack the US and all US warning systems would fail, then in theory only the US would be destroyed. However, if even a small portion of the 8,000 nuclear warheads explode over the US, even under the silly linear model, not many people of the world would survive the spread of radiation and nuclear winter hit on food supply. Possibly half of all Russians would die from the effects of such victory, even without any nuclear missile exploding over Russia. Naturally, I believe that a US First Strike on Russia is much more likely, but when things get crazy nobody is really immune from doing the stupidest crime.

    In other words, a nuclear war would only make sense for the inhabitants of Mars, not for anybody sharing this planet.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Naturally, I believe that a US First Strike on Russia is much more likely, but when things get crazy nobody is really immune from doing the stupidest crime."

    That the Puppeteers had managed to produce such Prez of United States as G.W. Bush - spectacularly ignorant in everything, lazy, gullible, narcissistic - has created a window into the world of the "haves." As we all could observe, this world is inhabited by the unscrupulous, ignorant, lazy, and narcissistic personalities that are not able to take responsibility for anything. They are parasitoids.

    On a top of the huge global nuclear arsenal, there are also the nuclear plants (the so-called "peaceful atom") that need terrific amount of money and efforts for maintaining the safety re control rods for eternity.
    , @mtn cur
    "Nobody is immune from doing the stupidest crimes" is the history of the human race. While I am an old hippie and I really do believe in loving my neighbors, I quit believing in hell back when I saw that any "intelligence" sufficient to think everything into existence would not be so much like humans that it would create a species of crazy apes and then burn them alive forever because they all are insane. Take Cain for example, who murdered his brother because god did not like his vegetables. Instrumental case.
  108. Fandrich says:
    @chris

    Americans back then understood – as opposed to you – that Nazi Germany was greater civilizational threat than Soviet communism. To reach that conclusion that one dictator is the same as the next is just totally devoid of any meaningful analysis.
     
    kidding, right ?
    Let's see,
    1. following the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact of 1939, Germany invaded half of Poland
    2. in return, France and England declared war on Germany
    3. 16 days later Russia invaded Poland
    (this is usually called a "set-up")

    You do know that by the time Hitler had even come to power, Stalin had already killed Millions of Russians and Ukrainians ?

    Please try to dispute these points if you want to but if you don't, how comes you to claim that:
    1. Germany was a greater threat than Russia
    2. the "Americans back then understood" this

    Even my college professor of ethics, who was a Jew and a totally decent man, told our class one day that the reason the U.S. and England turned on Hitler, was because he was ignoring the International Banking system and as a result Germany became the richest nation on earth at the time, while Americans were waiting in soup lines. The bankers did not want a system like this to gain popularity all through Europe and possibly the world. So , they set up Germany’s total destruction. They felt they could do the same with the Soviet Union next.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tarl
    A truly insightful man.. Wish all Jews (and everyone else for that matter) thought like him...wonder how he cut through the matrix?
    , @chris
    I appreciate the point your professor was making; I hadn't heard it before but I would respectfully disagree with the assertion that Germany beame all that wealthy in the interbelic period. No country could become wealthy through a fascist, command economy. Sure they can channel public funds to build big things but it would all be at the expense of the population. By redirecting economic output to useless causes they could only make everyone poorer.

    FDR was doing the same thing in the US, taking Mussolini as a model for many of the "new deal" programs, and as your professor was saying, see how that turned out ! (By coincidence, Tom Woods was discussing something very similar just the other day ! http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-664-how-the-fed-screwed-up-before-and-during-the-great-depression/)
  109. Kiza says:
    @Bayan
    Scary. All this for what?

    I am not sure what you are referring to, but for my money these power and wealth hungry psychopaths are playing with our lives as if they were just gambling chips in a casino (How do you feel as a worthless piece of plastic?)

    The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty is one of the most useless documents in human history, used to keep the nuclear monopoly in the hands of the mentioned psychopaths. The US is the biggest abuser of the NNPT by openly modernizing its nuclear arsenal at a starting cost of at least $1T, followed by Israel which never even signed it, all the while both endlessly crapping about Iran. Russia, Britain and France are also abusing the NNPT by modernizing their bombs and delivery systems, instead if reducing and getting rid of them completely as per NNPT they signed.

    The goal is to retain the nuclear monopoly for terrorizing and pillaging whoever you want to.

    Read More
  110. @Wally
    One big reason is the Russian resistance to the take down of Syria's Assad that Israel is demanding.


    Without a doubt 'neo-cons' are code words for slimy Israel First Zionists.

    Exaaaaactly. 1917 wasn’t good enough for ‘em….

    Read More
  111. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Avery
    {The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews}

    Not only that, but Russians have zero guilt feelings towards Jews, unlike Western Europeans (and Germans of course): unlike them, who collaborated with Nazis in the roundup and mass murder of Jews, the Red Army saved European Jewry from total extermination by Nazis. Russians know what they did, and are absolutely immune to the guilt trip.

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties.

    Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading USSR, Europe would be German occupied to this day, and not a single European Jew would be left alive there.

    slippery slope

    Read More
  112. Ivan K. says:
    @annamaria
    In case you are not aware, Stalin (Jugashvilli) was Georgian (similar to the current ruler of Odessa, the good boy Saakishvilli). Stalin was rather ethnicity-blind when eliminating the best and brightest and independent-minded in the Soviet Union.
    As for the alleged plight of Soviet Jewery, it would be interesting to see the relevant statistics, such as the percentage of Jews on the leading position in industries and academia. Judging from the percentage of Jewish billionaires among the so-called "new Russians," Soviet Jews had plenty of opportunities to get great education and then get access to the key positions in the industries, academy, and government. Perhaps it was the incongruence between the many announcement of the supposedly vicious anti-semitism in the Soviet Union and the actual state of affairs, which made Solzhenitsyn book about the history of Jewish people in Russia ( "Two Hundred Years Together) unpublishable in the United States. After this documentary was published in Russian, Solzhenitsyn became demonized for being politically incorrect and shunned by all large publishing houses in the English-speaking West.

    Stalin was rather ethnicity-blind when eliminating the best and brightest and independent-minded in the Soviet Union.

    Have you taken a look at Grover Furr’s study of Stalin? Have you looked at Russian academic revisionist historians of the interwar period? If you did, what’s your take of their work?

    Read More
  113. tbraton says:
    @Marcus
    It's ok to hate Russia (stupidly portrayed as neo-czarist by apoplectic homosexual/jewish warhawnks) now according to the media, we were supposed to at least have some sympathy for the USSR due to the nobility of communism.

    Not being Jewish or a homosexual or a warhawk, I thought the only thing that made the Russians our enemies was Communism. In my simplicity, I thought NATO would be ended within 10 years of the dissolution of the Soviet Union back in 1991. But, as I noted in a comment on Israel Shamir’s latest blog, having a military that is the size of the next 7 or 8 countries combined, creates an imperative to go around the world “looking for monsters to destroy.” After all, in the words of Madeline Albright, “What’s the point of having this superb military you’re always talking about if we can’t use it?” Apparently, she and Hillary Clinton must feel the same way about our nuclear deterrent.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Marcus
    There was an Onion headline (back when they were still funny) about George HW Bush mourning the collapse of the USSR since there would no longer be a readily available justification for massive defense spending. Supposedly neo-czarist Russia will be a better bogeyman than the USSR, since it will bring much more of the cultural left onboard (what's funny about that is I believe the USSR outlawed homosexuality, most definitely not the case in modern Russia).
  114. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    Because Israel sees Russia as a hindrance to its freedom of action in the Middle East.

    Israel has been patching up ISIS fighters in their military hospitals and there is at least one case of an Israeli ‘special advisor’ having been found embedded within an ISIS unit.

    I thought this was a very revealing TV moment: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0YM_iLwXB0

    Read More
  115. alexander says:
    @macilrae
    As a stateswoman Hillary was a midget - under full control - and if she is installed as president then those neocons will have an even freer reign than they had under GWB (which is not to say that he personally could take any credit).

    I can add one more reason for US hostility to Russia: a cosy relationship between them would be bad for Israel which now can play the one off against the other and so avoid their concerted pressure to settle with the Palestinians. For the same reason, the relationship with China should be maintained at arm's length.

    The degree to which Israel's obsessive occupation of Palestine has indirectly affected every single one of us is just staggering - think of 9/11, think of Iraq, Iran, Egypt, Afghanistan, Libya and of course Syria. Look at the resulting $20 trillion national debt and ask who's paying for all that in blood and treasure? This was all in huge part enabled by the neocons.

    Very well articulated and thoughtful analysis, Macilrae.

    Very well articulated , indeed.

    And it sure is “staggering” how affected we all are.

    It is almost beyond staggering….it’s “obscene”.

    The idea the United States is nearly “insolvent” today…

    so that Israel can complete its”extermination”of Palestine.

    The idea that our bill of rights has been eviscerated,….

    so that Israel can complete its “extermination” of Palestine.

    The idea that our entire Free Republic has been transformed into a brutal totalitarian police state………

    so that Israel can complete its “extermination” of Palestine.

    The idea that perhaps more than three million wholly innocent , decent people have been murdered…..

    So that Israel can complete its “extermination” of Palestine..

    The idea that there are now over 59 million refugees from war-torn middle east regions..

    so that Israel can complete its “extermination ” of Palestine.

    The idea that we all may well go to hell in a hand basket from nuclear annihilation…

    so that Israel can complete its “extermination” of Palestine..

    . is quite a “staggering” revelation..

    A staggering “revelation” indeed.

    But if this is NOT the case…….and it might not be….

    .then show me Israel’s “plan for peace”

    Where is it ?

    Read More
  116. @Unapologetic White Man
    Neocons (Jews) have a tremendous animosity toward the Russians.

    Correct. A fact which explains where 99% of the enmity toward Putin lies. After 70+ years, Jews are still pissed at Adolph for putting a stop to their looting of Germany, so rest assured that they’re just getting started on Putin for doing the same for Russia. Apparently, there’s few things a person can do to earn the undying hatred of Jews than deprive them of the freedom to loot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @schmenz
    Carroll:

    Interesting comment, which makes me want to ask a question. Does Putin understand this animosity? I realize that diplomacy is necessary even when dealing with people you dislike but I am always amazed at how obsequious Putin tends to be towards people like the odious Netanyahu. Does he not sense the danger coming at him?

    Your thoughts?
  117. @Bayan
    Scary. All this for what?

    Scary. All this for what?

    Jewish domination of the world, as prophesized by the Elders of Zion .

    Read More
  118. tarl says:
    @Tom Welsh
    Everything that is wrong about the USA's foreign policy (and its view of the world in general) is implicit in the single word "exceptional". In claiming that the USA is exceptional, unique and indispensable, American leaders are essentially declaring that Americans are the latest master race. Apart from the Jews, who still claim to be God's chosen people (presumably to the exclusion of everyone else), that leaves Americans as the only people in the world today who are actively and energetically saying that they are better, cleverer, more efficient, more powerful, and fairer than everyone else.

    I don't think I really need waste time pointing out what has happened to all the previous "master races", do I?

    Well Jews consider themselves the master race and chosen so by God… This implies?

    Read More
  119. Tarl says:
    @Fandrich
    Even my college professor of ethics, who was a Jew and a totally decent man, told our class one day that the reason the U.S. and England turned on Hitler, was because he was ignoring the International Banking system and as a result Germany became the richest nation on earth at the time, while Americans were waiting in soup lines. The bankers did not want a system like this to gain popularity all through Europe and possibly the world. So , they set up Germany's total destruction. They felt they could do the same with the Soviet Union next.

    A truly insightful man.. Wish all Jews (and everyone else for that matter) thought like him…wonder how he cut through the matrix?

    Read More
  120. @Cyrano
    You should actually know the answer to this one. The way you postulated your question whether the war against Nazi Germany 1933-1939 was unavoidable is like the choice was up to the Western Powers to make. It wasn’t. Germany made that decision for them and yes - it was unavoidable. I know, technically France and Britain declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, but they didn’t actually attack Germany I guess out of fear that they might hurt some German sensibilities.

    Remember the “Phony War”? Then Germany decided to put some reality into the “Phony war” by actually attacking France and Britain with total disregard as to whether they are going to hurt their feelings or not. As for the US, again it was Germany who declared war on them, not the other way around, so again, US had no choice there at all.

    As for the current tensions with Russia, I don’t think that they will lead to war. It’s just a result of a failed Neocon plan to wrestle Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit. The problem with the Neocons is that not only their original scripts are awful, but when they come up with a sequel script – that’s not an Oscar winning material either. Remember Iraq invasion in 2003? The original rationale was WMD, when that didn’t pan out, then it was pure western humanism on display. They did it to remove a dictator and finally bring democracy to the yearning masses. How noble.

    According to the Neocon manifesto, the post cold war objective of US is to prevent re-emergence of any challenger to American supremacy either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere. Just because Zbig said that the only thing missing from making Russia a superpower again is Ukraine doesn’t make it an irrefutable truth. What does Zbig know about anything. He still says that the choice US made in 1979 was the right one. Tell that to the 9/11 victims. Forget about suing SA for 9/11. Sue Zbig, it was that degenerate’s idea that started the whole thing.

    You did not answer the question.

    In what way was Nazism so threatening to the USA, Jan. 1933 – Jan 1939, that a war was the only option?

    What was the precise casus belli?

    Keep in mind this bit of logic from Tim Snyder, PhD:

    In history you can’t really say something happened in 1933 because something was going to happen in 1945. You can only explain things that happened in 1933 by events up to and including 1933. It’s very tempting to apply later events . . . but we can only understand historical events in terms of the causes that bring them about. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcXMV-4HfXs

    Also bear in mind what was published in a British newspaper March 24, 1933. and later in multiple newspapers throughout the world, that “Judea Declares War on Germany.”

    What was the casus belli in March 1933?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Let me guess something – you are a big fan of the Harry Potter novels – right? There was no magical moment between 1933 and 1939 when it downed on the Western Powers that they have to fight Nazi Germany.

    It was a gradual process of realization. First they tried to appease the beast, throwing him untermenschland here, untermenschland there (you see both Chechoslovakia and Poland are Slavic) and then Hitler decided to invade the mother of all untermenschlands – Russia.

    Then the west realized that they are running out of untermenchlands to appease Hitler with and unless they get their act together Hitler might see them too as untermensch potential.

    I did not use logic in reverse chronological order to justify events that occurred before with the ones that occurred latter, I don’t know where you got that from. I can’t answer you any better than that. Sorry, end of discussion.
  121. @Avery
    {The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews}

    Not only that, but Russians have zero guilt feelings towards Jews, unlike Western Europeans (and Germans of course): unlike them, who collaborated with Nazis in the roundup and mass murder of Jews, the Red Army saved European Jewry from total extermination by Nazis. Russians know what they did, and are absolutely immune to the guilt trip.

    And many people may not be aware, but Roosevelt turned away 1,000s of Jewish refugees from Germany (and Europe) who could see the writing on the wall and were trying to find shelter in safe counties.

    Had Hitler not made the fatal mistake of invading USSR, Europe would be German occupied to this day, and not a single European Jew would be left alive there.

    100% pure Zionist propaganda. According to post-war census records, along with 4 million survivors collecting free money from a victimized, brow-beaten world, Jews suffered no greater loss of life than any other minority group, and probably far less.

    http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001RrIkD0cyz4YK1erNqijZcCD1cLUZ5Kxx6sw7mxQE0AADkaYk4aCfUn8CTC08zPGtwamDyIphhyQwXxzfzUGMRGTiTj8RCIIjm0IUarIGreS4ybXGkDgk5XUAkpJMIk07zGDhZy6N5zdlkNGEnhBxwd-niS8Lms5HbRGuuDmY6uWuPwgSdKefHNsTRWMn34fwKpUrcrBGas4uz0XkJfc_Fw==&c=xyTIzv9okmwq4oS3EpC85tIIcDPOhJVQlVX-lNZB-XIRPiT99e9Nug==&ch=2Ms7Pu-JkPgCCGk_h2G6l_4usrOHj7jlMH1OSf1G7FWzP7b7QnZcZQ==

    Read More
  122. @Fran Macadam
    There's a trillion-plus nuke upgrade to be justified. That requires one heck of a dire threat. It's nuclear poker, double or nothing. And there are no limits. War is big business, the biggest of all. Winner take all.

    Yesterday I opened the water bill and it contained a notice that the water company had not been using the proper chemicals to prevent corrosion of the pipes, thus there might be lead in the water.

    Maybe DHS could drop a nuclear bomb on the plumbing lines under our streets?

    Should TSA run their machines over our water before it is poured into a glass to drink?

    Read More
    • Replies: @mtn cur
    As job skills became more specialized, and discretionary time moved indoors to the entertainment industry, citizens became progressively estranged from the world of events and conditions. Thus post moderns have achieved high tech savagery and believe in a lot of magic. Not only do managerial medicine men magically bust the budget, their peers know how to fix it by eliminating technicians who actually "make the magic happen." The water magically is pure and comes from the wall, just as safe food magically appears in the store, electricity comes from the wall and money comes from the card. Then the misleadership offers bribes of tax money to gov employees who retire or are RIFed, to keep quiet about what really happens, that is, severance pay if they sign agreements that includes a non disclosure clause and thinly veiled threats. Top to bottom, public and private, we are covered up with citizens who are experts that never cracked a text book on many critical work skills, and who cannot learn anything because they already know all that is important. I may dispute any number of popular scripts found on UNZ, but at least you guys do serious study if only to peddle your favorite agendas. Not merely the MSM, but all sources of fantasy doctrine have so little credibility with me that I find the study of which .223 deer loads gives the most one shot stops on looneys high on Allah or Hallalalu or of drought tolerant food crops of greater worth.
  123. Marcus says:
    @tbraton
    Not being Jewish or a homosexual or a warhawk, I thought the only thing that made the Russians our enemies was Communism. In my simplicity, I thought NATO would be ended within 10 years of the dissolution of the Soviet Union back in 1991. But, as I noted in a comment on Israel Shamir's latest blog, having a military that is the size of the next 7 or 8 countries combined, creates an imperative to go around the world "looking for monsters to destroy." After all, in the words of Madeline Albright, "What's the point of having this superb military you're always talking about if we can't use it?" Apparently, she and Hillary Clinton must feel the same way about our nuclear deterrent.

    There was an Onion headline (back when they were still funny) about George HW Bush mourning the collapse of the USSR since there would no longer be a readily available justification for massive defense spending. Supposedly neo-czarist Russia will be a better bogeyman than the USSR, since it will bring much more of the cultural left onboard (what’s funny about that is I believe the USSR outlawed homosexuality, most definitely not the case in modern Russia).

    Read More
  124. @annamaria
    In case you are not aware, Stalin (Jugashvilli) was Georgian (similar to the current ruler of Odessa, the good boy Saakishvilli). Stalin was rather ethnicity-blind when eliminating the best and brightest and independent-minded in the Soviet Union.
    As for the alleged plight of Soviet Jewery, it would be interesting to see the relevant statistics, such as the percentage of Jews on the leading position in industries and academia. Judging from the percentage of Jewish billionaires among the so-called "new Russians," Soviet Jews had plenty of opportunities to get great education and then get access to the key positions in the industries, academy, and government. Perhaps it was the incongruence between the many announcement of the supposedly vicious anti-semitism in the Soviet Union and the actual state of affairs, which made Solzhenitsyn book about the history of Jewish people in Russia ( "Two Hundred Years Together) unpublishable in the United States. After this documentary was published in Russian, Solzhenitsyn became demonized for being politically incorrect and shunned by all large publishing houses in the English-speaking West.

    After this documentary was published in Russian, Solzhenitsyn became demonized for being politically incorrect and shunned by all large publishing houses in the English-speaking West.

    You wouldn’t happen to know who owned these publishing houses would you?

    Read More
  125. I have no idea how the world will end but I know how humanity will end. Back in caves.

    Read More
  126. annamaria says:
    @Cyrano
    You should actually know the answer to this one. The way you postulated your question whether the war against Nazi Germany 1933-1939 was unavoidable is like the choice was up to the Western Powers to make. It wasn’t. Germany made that decision for them and yes - it was unavoidable. I know, technically France and Britain declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, but they didn’t actually attack Germany I guess out of fear that they might hurt some German sensibilities.

    Remember the “Phony War”? Then Germany decided to put some reality into the “Phony war” by actually attacking France and Britain with total disregard as to whether they are going to hurt their feelings or not. As for the US, again it was Germany who declared war on them, not the other way around, so again, US had no choice there at all.

    As for the current tensions with Russia, I don’t think that they will lead to war. It’s just a result of a failed Neocon plan to wrestle Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit. The problem with the Neocons is that not only their original scripts are awful, but when they come up with a sequel script – that’s not an Oscar winning material either. Remember Iraq invasion in 2003? The original rationale was WMD, when that didn’t pan out, then it was pure western humanism on display. They did it to remove a dictator and finally bring democracy to the yearning masses. How noble.

    According to the Neocon manifesto, the post cold war objective of US is to prevent re-emergence of any challenger to American supremacy either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere. Just because Zbig said that the only thing missing from making Russia a superpower again is Ukraine doesn’t make it an irrefutable truth. What does Zbig know about anything. He still says that the choice US made in 1979 was the right one. Tell that to the 9/11 victims. Forget about suing SA for 9/11. Sue Zbig, it was that degenerate’s idea that started the whole thing.

    “As for the current tensions with Russia, I don’t think that they will lead to war. It’s just a result of a failed Neocon plan to wrestle Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit.”

    This is a very optimist opinion. Unfortunately, a charged gun could discharge (almost) by accident when in irresponsible hands. We have been conditioned for the inevitable showdown by the powerful self-aggrandizing lunatics, their presstitutes, and the eager crowd of obliging opportunists.

    Read More
  127. annamaria says:
    @Kiza
    Another thing that most people do not appreciate is that the humanity does not really know the effect of turning the surface of the Earth into the surface of the Sun for a couple of hours. There is even a theory that the Earth's atmosphere could pop out like a balloon into the inter-planetary space after so many of its molecules get hyper-accelerated. Scientists are biased in favor of a linear behavior because this approach is so popular for the purpose of simplification of natural phenomena (and simulations). This is why they look at individual nuclear test explosions and just multiply, but the nature's response to the persistent nuclear explosions could be an exponential phenomenon: pops out the atmosphere, changes the rotation of the planet, the inclination of its axis.

    To come closer to your question, there is a strong advantage on the side which does the First Strike. If Russia were to attack the US and all US warning systems would fail, then in theory only the US would be destroyed. However, if even a small portion of the 8,000 nuclear warheads explode over the US, even under the silly linear model, not many people of the world would survive the spread of radiation and nuclear winter hit on food supply. Possibly half of all Russians would die from the effects of such victory, even without any nuclear missile exploding over Russia. Naturally, I believe that a US First Strike on Russia is much more likely, but when things get crazy nobody is really immune from doing the stupidest crime.

    In other words, a nuclear war would only make sense for the inhabitants of Mars, not for anybody sharing this planet.

    “Naturally, I believe that a US First Strike on Russia is much more likely, but when things get crazy nobody is really immune from doing the stupidest crime.”

    That the Puppeteers had managed to produce such Prez of United States as G.W. Bush – spectacularly ignorant in everything, lazy, gullible, narcissistic – has created a window into the world of the “haves.” As we all could observe, this world is inhabited by the unscrupulous, ignorant, lazy, and narcissistic personalities that are not able to take responsibility for anything. They are parasitoids.

    On a top of the huge global nuclear arsenal, there are also the nuclear plants (the so-called “peaceful atom”) that need terrific amount of money and efforts for maintaining the safety re control rods for eternity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    It is not by chance that both the US nuclear energy power plants and the US nuclear missiles are financed from the budget of the Department of Energy.

    If people only knew how uneconomical nuclear energy is, how the corrupt governments include only the start up and the operational costs whilst the society pays for the disposal and gets radiation into the milk, fish and salad on the table. And the industry even tried to catch a fresh ride on the Anthropological Global Warming BS, as a low carbon alternative. Unbelievable BS, to replace carbon (the main building element of organic matter) with radiation.

    BTW, almost everything Green is extremely, extremely corrupt. The new priests of the Green God remind me of the fat Catholic priests selling indulgences to the stupefied amoral masses.
    , @alexander
    To add to the plethora of heart breaking catastrophes that already exist, I do believe that a newly elected Hillary will, in fact, use tactical mini-nukes, not against Russia, but against Iran, and then hold her nose up at Putin and the world...as if to say "Yeah,..... and what are you gonna do about it ?"

    It seems that might be the next big move on our "chessboard of imbeciles".

    But hey , who knows ?

    .

    , @Art

    “Naturally, I believe that a US First Strike on Russia is much more likely, but when things get crazy nobody is really immune from doing the stupidest crime.”
     
    The Russians are a worth adversary – they are not crazy – they will not go off the deep end.

    There is ZERO reason for us to be contentious with them right now.

    Let’s be honest, the problem with the Ukraine was set in motion by us – NOT them.

    We have no reason to move NATO up to their borders – this is 100% wrong.

    Of course this is all Jew business – end of story.
  128. Kiza says:
    @annamaria
    "Naturally, I believe that a US First Strike on Russia is much more likely, but when things get crazy nobody is really immune from doing the stupidest crime."

    That the Puppeteers had managed to produce such Prez of United States as G.W. Bush - spectacularly ignorant in everything, lazy, gullible, narcissistic - has created a window into the world of the "haves." As we all could observe, this world is inhabited by the unscrupulous, ignorant, lazy, and narcissistic personalities that are not able to take responsibility for anything. They are parasitoids.

    On a top of the huge global nuclear arsenal, there are also the nuclear plants (the so-called "peaceful atom") that need terrific amount of money and efforts for maintaining the safety re control rods for eternity.

    It is not by chance that both the US nuclear energy power plants and the US nuclear missiles are financed from the budget of the Department of Energy.

    If people only knew how uneconomical nuclear energy is, how the corrupt governments include only the start up and the operational costs whilst the society pays for the disposal and gets radiation into the milk, fish and salad on the table. And the industry even tried to catch a fresh ride on the Anthropological Global Warming BS, as a low carbon alternative. Unbelievable BS, to replace carbon (the main building element of organic matter) with radiation.

    BTW, almost everything Green is extremely, extremely corrupt. The new priests of the Green God remind me of the fat Catholic priests selling indulgences to the stupefied amoral masses.

    Read More
    • Agree: Carroll Price
    • Replies: @mtn cur
    Just because the vampires hijack anything that helps their propaganda program does not mean that many environmental issues are not quite real. The very best lies are truths sheep dipped to force other people to change so that the thief who "steals the truth" can continue with his evil.
    , @Carroll Price
    We don't normally agree on much, but I agree with you about the deception connected with nuclear power. Which appears cost effective simply because the true cost associated with it have yet to be seriously discussed, much less paid in full. But when the true cost in money and lives becomes a reality for future generations forced to deal with the mountains of deadly radioactive waste, nuclear power will be understood to have been the most expensive deception foisted off on the industrialized world.
  129. mtn cur says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Yesterday I opened the water bill and it contained a notice that the water company had not been using the proper chemicals to prevent corrosion of the pipes, thus there might be lead in the water.



    Maybe DHS could drop a nuclear bomb on the plumbing lines under our streets?

    Should TSA run their machines over our water before it is poured into a glass to drink?

    As job skills became more specialized, and discretionary time moved indoors to the entertainment industry, citizens became progressively estranged from the world of events and conditions. Thus post moderns have achieved high tech savagery and believe in a lot of magic. Not only do managerial medicine men magically bust the budget, their peers know how to fix it by eliminating technicians who actually “make the magic happen.” The water magically is pure and comes from the wall, just as safe food magically appears in the store, electricity comes from the wall and money comes from the card. Then the misleadership offers bribes of tax money to gov employees who retire or are RIFed, to keep quiet about what really happens, that is, severance pay if they sign agreements that includes a non disclosure clause and thinly veiled threats. Top to bottom, public and private, we are covered up with citizens who are experts that never cracked a text book on many critical work skills, and who cannot learn anything because they already know all that is important. I may dispute any number of popular scripts found on UNZ, but at least you guys do serious study if only to peddle your favorite agendas. Not merely the MSM, but all sources of fantasy doctrine have so little credibility with me that I find the study of which .223 deer loads gives the most one shot stops on looneys high on Allah or Hallalalu or of drought tolerant food crops of greater worth.

    Read More
  130. alexander says:
    @annamaria
    "Naturally, I believe that a US First Strike on Russia is much more likely, but when things get crazy nobody is really immune from doing the stupidest crime."

    That the Puppeteers had managed to produce such Prez of United States as G.W. Bush - spectacularly ignorant in everything, lazy, gullible, narcissistic - has created a window into the world of the "haves." As we all could observe, this world is inhabited by the unscrupulous, ignorant, lazy, and narcissistic personalities that are not able to take responsibility for anything. They are parasitoids.

    On a top of the huge global nuclear arsenal, there are also the nuclear plants (the so-called "peaceful atom") that need terrific amount of money and efforts for maintaining the safety re control rods for eternity.

    To add to the plethora of heart breaking catastrophes that already exist, I do believe that a newly elected Hillary will, in fact, use tactical mini-nukes, not against Russia, but against Iran, and then hold her nose up at Putin and the world…as if to say “Yeah,….. and what are you gonna do about it ?”

    It seems that might be the next big move on our “chessboard of imbeciles”.

    But hey , who knows ?

    .

    Read More
    • Replies: @mtn cur
    I confess that I worry that if Twitler is elected, she may go even to such a length to prove she has "a pair." Perhaps she needs a testicle transplant which could be shown on c-span.
  131. mtn cur says:
    @Kiza
    Another thing that most people do not appreciate is that the humanity does not really know the effect of turning the surface of the Earth into the surface of the Sun for a couple of hours. There is even a theory that the Earth's atmosphere could pop out like a balloon into the inter-planetary space after so many of its molecules get hyper-accelerated. Scientists are biased in favor of a linear behavior because this approach is so popular for the purpose of simplification of natural phenomena (and simulations). This is why they look at individual nuclear test explosions and just multiply, but the nature's response to the persistent nuclear explosions could be an exponential phenomenon: pops out the atmosphere, changes the rotation of the planet, the inclination of its axis.

    To come closer to your question, there is a strong advantage on the side which does the First Strike. If Russia were to attack the US and all US warning systems would fail, then in theory only the US would be destroyed. However, if even a small portion of the 8,000 nuclear warheads explode over the US, even under the silly linear model, not many people of the world would survive the spread of radiation and nuclear winter hit on food supply. Possibly half of all Russians would die from the effects of such victory, even without any nuclear missile exploding over Russia. Naturally, I believe that a US First Strike on Russia is much more likely, but when things get crazy nobody is really immune from doing the stupidest crime.

    In other words, a nuclear war would only make sense for the inhabitants of Mars, not for anybody sharing this planet.

    “Nobody is immune from doing the stupidest crimes” is the history of the human race. While I am an old hippie and I really do believe in loving my neighbors, I quit believing in hell back when I saw that any “intelligence” sufficient to think everything into existence would not be so much like humans that it would create a species of crazy apes and then burn them alive forever because they all are insane. Take Cain for example, who murdered his brother because god did not like his vegetables. Instrumental case.

    Read More
  132. mtn cur says:
    @Kiza
    It is not by chance that both the US nuclear energy power plants and the US nuclear missiles are financed from the budget of the Department of Energy.

    If people only knew how uneconomical nuclear energy is, how the corrupt governments include only the start up and the operational costs whilst the society pays for the disposal and gets radiation into the milk, fish and salad on the table. And the industry even tried to catch a fresh ride on the Anthropological Global Warming BS, as a low carbon alternative. Unbelievable BS, to replace carbon (the main building element of organic matter) with radiation.

    BTW, almost everything Green is extremely, extremely corrupt. The new priests of the Green God remind me of the fat Catholic priests selling indulgences to the stupefied amoral masses.

    Just because the vampires hijack anything that helps their propaganda program does not mean that many environmental issues are not quite real. The very best lies are truths sheep dipped to force other people to change so that the thief who “steals the truth” can continue with his evil.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Well yes, you are right, but please consider that the priests of the Green God (the vampires as you call them) are much, much louder than the truth seekers. The true environmental issues are almost unnoticeable underneath the blaring of money making opportunities. This is why I am doing my own green whilst paying, like everybody, to the priesthood of the Green God through all kinds of Government levies and taxes. But we are getting off topic.
  133. mtn cur says:
    @alexander
    To add to the plethora of heart breaking catastrophes that already exist, I do believe that a newly elected Hillary will, in fact, use tactical mini-nukes, not against Russia, but against Iran, and then hold her nose up at Putin and the world...as if to say "Yeah,..... and what are you gonna do about it ?"

    It seems that might be the next big move on our "chessboard of imbeciles".

    But hey , who knows ?

    .

    I confess that I worry that if Twitler is elected, she may go even to such a length to prove she has “a pair.” Perhaps she needs a testicle transplant which could be shown on c-span.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Yeah right,

    The first woman president......to go nuclear....


    I bet they are all excited about it too....

    Like they just can't wait......
  134. Avery says:

    { …..she may go even to such a length to prove she has “a pair.” }

    Quite true.

    To wit, women serving in US admins have been more aggressive and warmongering than men, to presumably prove they are “as good as men”.

    Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power, Susan Rice……
    Albright, Killary (as Sec State.)…..

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    Forgot to add this:

    When she was visiting Bosnia (I think), she came up with the boldfaced lie that she was dodging sniper fire when she landed at the airport - to presumably appear "manly".
    Not very reassuring: people who vainly try to prove something they are not, oftentimes resort to rash, irrational acts.
  135. alexander says:
    @mtn cur
    I confess that I worry that if Twitler is elected, she may go even to such a length to prove she has "a pair." Perhaps she needs a testicle transplant which could be shown on c-span.

    Yeah right,

    The first woman president……to go nuclear….

    I bet they are all excited about it too….

    Like they just can’t wait……

    Read More
  136. Avery says:
    @Avery
    { .....she may go even to such a length to prove she has “a pair.” }

    Quite true.

    To wit, women serving in US admins have been more aggressive and warmongering than men, to presumably prove they are "as good as men".

    Valerie Jarrett, Samantha Power, Susan Rice......
    Albright, Killary (as Sec State.).....

    Forgot to add this:

    When she was visiting Bosnia (I think), she came up with the boldfaced lie that she was dodging sniper fire when she landed at the airport – to presumably appear “manly”.
    Not very reassuring: people who vainly try to prove something they are not, oftentimes resort to rash, irrational acts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "When she was visiting Bosnia (I think), she came up with the boldfaced lie that she was dodging sniper fire" - She just demonstrated to her handlers that she is open to use any false flag operations that will be necessary.
  137. Cyrano says:
    @chris
    all you're saying is that whoever resides at the other end of our gun barrel is ipso facto our biggest threat.
    'if we fought them, they must have been our biggest threat'
    But then it's pointless to discuss anything, isn't it?

    You are right man. Every person that ever ended at the wrong end of the gun was innocent. This is due to the schizophrenic human nature. There is no rational way to explain how humans choose their enemies. Mostly it is first we kill them, then we feel remorse and analyze the causes and effect in reverse and come to the conclusion that since there are now dead how possibly can they have ever been an enemy and a threat to us. Does my argument make any sense to you? No? Well, now you know how I feel when I read your comments.

    Read More
    • Replies: @chris
    Look, Cyrano, I don't see the point of getting personal. I agree with your comments on the neocons but not with those about WWII.

    I don't like to carry on with this type of side-show discussion, because I don't think it's fair to Phil. If you or I wanted to do this we'd have to make our own forum and take this type of discussion there.

    I try to read these comments to learn something I didn't know before, and maybe to try to explore some of the implications of Phil Giraldi's articles.
  138. schmenz says:
    @Carroll Price
    Correct. A fact which explains where 99% of the enmity toward Putin lies. After 70+ years, Jews are still pissed at Adolph for putting a stop to their looting of Germany, so rest assured that they're just getting started on Putin for doing the same for Russia. Apparently, there's few things a person can do to earn the undying hatred of Jews than deprive them of the freedom to loot.

    Carroll:

    Interesting comment, which makes me want to ask a question. Does Putin understand this animosity? I realize that diplomacy is necessary even when dealing with people you dislike but I am always amazed at how obsequious Putin tends to be towards people like the odious Netanyahu. Does he not sense the danger coming at him?

    Your thoughts?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    I wouldn't know how to intelligently answer your question as to why Putin deals so gingerly with Israel. I am as mystified as you or anyone else. My best guess is that since most Jewish families in Israel (practically all the ruling class) came from Ukraine, Poland or Russia, and are thus misplaced Russians with little, if any, Semitic blood, Putin could very well feel a certain level of kinship with them. Putin also seems to enjoying doing a minimum amount to deal with problems and simply back off leave it at that. For instance, when the US staged their little coup in Kiev, I never understood why he didn't dispatch Russian troops to occupy all of east Ukraine up to the Dnieper River, so the people of the region, most of whom are ethnic Russians and, like the inhabitants of Crimea had expressed a desire to become a part of the Russian Federation could not do so without further bloodshed. Same thing goes for Syria. Although still shaky, once Assad got back on his feet, and ISIS was on the ropes and practically surrounded and defeated by Russian air attacks, he simply eases off the devastation and starts playing footsy with John Kerry by agreeing to a cease-fire and holding peace talks with the same people who are responsible for starting the entire affair.
  139. utu says:
    @Avery
    Forgot to add this:

    When she was visiting Bosnia (I think), she came up with the boldfaced lie that she was dodging sniper fire when she landed at the airport - to presumably appear "manly".
    Not very reassuring: people who vainly try to prove something they are not, oftentimes resort to rash, irrational acts.

    “When she was visiting Bosnia (I think), she came up with the boldfaced lie that she was dodging sniper fire” – She just demonstrated to her handlers that she is open to use any false flag operations that will be necessary.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles E. Equine
    We have to realize that was the Ambien talking. Sshe'd just arisen - hardly had time to do hair and teeth - before she was faced with the media - and that wake-up dream - tracers snapping by and a child to worry about, hell, what he-man wouldn't have mentioned that 'reality'. She IS American, you know.

    Funny how nobody's mentioning that. It's almost like she deserves a poke at 'stolen', or at least pseudotropic, valor.

  140. @Kiza
    It is not by chance that both the US nuclear energy power plants and the US nuclear missiles are financed from the budget of the Department of Energy.

    If people only knew how uneconomical nuclear energy is, how the corrupt governments include only the start up and the operational costs whilst the society pays for the disposal and gets radiation into the milk, fish and salad on the table. And the industry even tried to catch a fresh ride on the Anthropological Global Warming BS, as a low carbon alternative. Unbelievable BS, to replace carbon (the main building element of organic matter) with radiation.

    BTW, almost everything Green is extremely, extremely corrupt. The new priests of the Green God remind me of the fat Catholic priests selling indulgences to the stupefied amoral masses.

    We don’t normally agree on much, but I agree with you about the deception connected with nuclear power. Which appears cost effective simply because the true cost associated with it have yet to be seriously discussed, much less paid in full. But when the true cost in money and lives becomes a reality for future generations forced to deal with the mountains of deadly radioactive waste, nuclear power will be understood to have been the most expensive deception foisted off on the industrialized world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Carroll, the only things that you are appear to definitely disagree on is your bagging of all Jews into the same bag. I know at least a few Jews who have nothing to do and are the victims, just like you and I, of the criminals and psychopaths running the global freak show who also happen to be Jewish. I felt that you threw up a tantrum at me just for claiming this, so here is a new opportunity for you to get angry. Otherwise, we are both good old paleo-conservatives/libertarians and could be pals. Peace.
  141. chris says:
    @Fandrich
    Even my college professor of ethics, who was a Jew and a totally decent man, told our class one day that the reason the U.S. and England turned on Hitler, was because he was ignoring the International Banking system and as a result Germany became the richest nation on earth at the time, while Americans were waiting in soup lines. The bankers did not want a system like this to gain popularity all through Europe and possibly the world. So , they set up Germany's total destruction. They felt they could do the same with the Soviet Union next.

    I appreciate the point your professor was making; I hadn’t heard it before but I would respectfully disagree with the assertion that Germany beame all that wealthy in the interbelic period. No country could become wealthy through a fascist, command economy. Sure they can channel public funds to build big things but it would all be at the expense of the population. By redirecting economic output to useless causes they could only make everyone poorer.

    FDR was doing the same thing in the US, taking Mussolini as a model for many of the “new deal” programs, and as your professor was saying, see how that turned out ! (By coincidence, Tom Woods was discussing something very similar just the other day ! http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-664-how-the-fed-screwed-up-before-and-during-the-great-depression/)

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "No country could become wealthy through a fascist" - Rethink and reevaluate your axioms.
  142. chris says:
    @Cyrano
    You are right man. Every person that ever ended at the wrong end of the gun was innocent. This is due to the schizophrenic human nature. There is no rational way to explain how humans choose their enemies. Mostly it is first we kill them, then we feel remorse and analyze the causes and effect in reverse and come to the conclusion that since there are now dead how possibly can they have ever been an enemy and a threat to us. Does my argument make any sense to you? No? Well, now you know how I feel when I read your comments.

    Look, Cyrano, I don’t see the point of getting personal. I agree with your comments on the neocons but not with those about WWII.

    I don’t like to carry on with this type of side-show discussion, because I don’t think it’s fair to Phil. If you or I wanted to do this we’d have to make our own forum and take this type of discussion there.

    I try to read these comments to learn something I didn’t know before, and maybe to try to explore some of the implications of Phil Giraldi’s articles.

    Read More
  143. Cyrano says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    You did not answer the question.

    In what way was Nazism so threatening to the USA, Jan. 1933 – Jan 1939, that a war was the only option?

    What was the precise casus belli?

    Keep in mind this bit of logic from Tim Snyder, PhD:

    In history you can’t really say something happened in 1933 because something was going to happen in 1945. You can only explain things that happened in 1933 by events up to and including 1933. It’s very tempting to apply later events . . . but we can only understand historical events in terms of the causes that bring them about. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qcXMV-4HfXs
     
    Also bear in mind what was published in a British newspaper March 24, 1933. and later in multiple newspapers throughout the world, that "Judea Declares War on Germany."

    What was the casus belli in March 1933?

    Let me guess something – you are a big fan of the Harry Potter novels – right? There was no magical moment between 1933 and 1939 when it downed on the Western Powers that they have to fight Nazi Germany.

    It was a gradual process of realization. First they tried to appease the beast, throwing him untermenschland here, untermenschland there (you see both Chechoslovakia and Poland are Slavic) and then Hitler decided to invade the mother of all untermenschlands – Russia.

    Then the west realized that they are running out of untermenchlands to appease Hitler with and unless they get their act together Hitler might see them too as untermensch potential.

    I did not use logic in reverse chronological order to justify events that occurred before with the ones that occurred latter, I don’t know where you got that from. I can’t answer you any better than that. Sorry, end of discussion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    So the west only went to war with Germany when Germany attacked Russia? Tell me monsieur, what colour was the sky on the planet where history played out this way?
  144. Montenegro? If you were a slip -holding member of Pete Munk’s and George Soro’s little Montenegrin Yacht Club you would certainly understand the need to have NATO having your Lido deck.

    Like, we’re talking the Bilderberg flotilla, OK? Can’t have the ‘quality’ of the earth expunged by some ‘attacker’ unavenged – knowing that article V could be invoked will at least stop the national ones. And the bonus would be in summer manoeuvres on the Dalmatian Coast.

    Knock me down and call me Susan, all those NATO ‘swabbies’ of any gender, ashore, footloose and fancy-free – it would raise a thickening in the thews of any Rothschild.

    Read More
  145. 5371 says:
    @Cyrano
    Let me guess something – you are a big fan of the Harry Potter novels – right? There was no magical moment between 1933 and 1939 when it downed on the Western Powers that they have to fight Nazi Germany.

    It was a gradual process of realization. First they tried to appease the beast, throwing him untermenschland here, untermenschland there (you see both Chechoslovakia and Poland are Slavic) and then Hitler decided to invade the mother of all untermenschlands – Russia.

    Then the west realized that they are running out of untermenchlands to appease Hitler with and unless they get their act together Hitler might see them too as untermensch potential.

    I did not use logic in reverse chronological order to justify events that occurred before with the ones that occurred latter, I don’t know where you got that from. I can’t answer you any better than that. Sorry, end of discussion.

    So the west only went to war with Germany when Germany attacked Russia? Tell me monsieur, what colour was the sky on the planet where history played out this way?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    I am sorry, in which universe the west went to war against Germany? I thought it was the other way around. Sorry son, I am afraid that the public education system in the country you’re from is not good enough to prepare you for discussions like this.
  146. @utu
    "When she was visiting Bosnia (I think), she came up with the boldfaced lie that she was dodging sniper fire" - She just demonstrated to her handlers that she is open to use any false flag operations that will be necessary.

    We have to realize that was the Ambien talking. Sshe’d just arisen – hardly had time to do hair and teeth – before she was faced with the media – and that wake-up dream – tracers snapping by and a child to worry about, hell, what he-man wouldn’t have mentioned that ‘reality’. She IS American, you know.

    Funny how nobody’s mentioning that. It’s almost like she deserves a poke at ‘stolen’, or at least pseudotropic, valor.

    Read More
  147. utu says:
    @chris
    I appreciate the point your professor was making; I hadn't heard it before but I would respectfully disagree with the assertion that Germany beame all that wealthy in the interbelic period. No country could become wealthy through a fascist, command economy. Sure they can channel public funds to build big things but it would all be at the expense of the population. By redirecting economic output to useless causes they could only make everyone poorer.

    FDR was doing the same thing in the US, taking Mussolini as a model for many of the "new deal" programs, and as your professor was saying, see how that turned out ! (By coincidence, Tom Woods was discussing something very similar just the other day ! http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-664-how-the-fed-screwed-up-before-and-during-the-great-depression/)

    “No country could become wealthy through a fascist” – Rethink and reevaluate your axioms.

    Read More
  148. Kiza says:
    @mtn cur
    Just because the vampires hijack anything that helps their propaganda program does not mean that many environmental issues are not quite real. The very best lies are truths sheep dipped to force other people to change so that the thief who "steals the truth" can continue with his evil.

    Well yes, you are right, but please consider that the priests of the Green God (the vampires as you call them) are much, much louder than the truth seekers. The true environmental issues are almost unnoticeable underneath the blaring of money making opportunities. This is why I am doing my own green whilst paying, like everybody, to the priesthood of the Green God through all kinds of Government levies and taxes. But we are getting off topic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mtn cur
    Outing those whose tactics include using the facts to deceive is among the main purposes of the UNZ review, no? The bonus confusion is worthy of its' own study.
  149. anarchyst says:

    It is easy to see the pervasiveness of Israel’s Mossad (if one knows where to look), arguably the most effective spy agency on the planet, please read “By Way of Deception” by Viktor Ostrowsky.

    From the Lavon affair (a “false flag” operation designed to draw the USA into a war with Egypt by making it look like Arabs bombed the U S interests section–a planted bomb exploded prematurely, exposing this as a Israeli planned and executed “incident”) to the deliberate attack on the USS Liberty (NOT “misidentification”, but another attempt to draw the USA into a war with Egypt and to hide the deliberate massacre of civilians in an Egyptian city, to Jonathon Pollard and NSA spying utilizing a company named Amdocs (which handles all US telephone billing records), you will find that Israel looks out for Israel’s interests ONLY. Normally, there is nothing wrong with a country looking out after it’s own interests, BUT Israel has a nasty habit of spying (and setting up) its “friends”.

    Who the hell died and appointed Israel the “master” of the middle east?? Iran (and all other middle-eastern countries) KNOWS that any nuclear “discharge” would affect the whole middle east . . . Any country that possesses nukes is not stupid . . . Israel has over a hundred nukes, manufactured with stolen American classified technology, refuses inspections of its nuclear facilities and is, in general, a “pain in the ass” to the rest of the world, along with (blackmailed) “big brother” United States of America.

    It is no secret that the U S State Department is infested with dual-nationality Israeli-Americans who form (and foment) the bulk of our neocon “foreign policy” straight from Tel Aviv. In fact there are 40 or so congressmen and senators with dual-nationality “ties” to Israel.
    Most people are unaware that Israel holds a “Damocles sword” over the world. Any attack on Israel will be met with a nuclear device being detonated in a city of Israel’s choosing. Israel calls this the “Samson option” and is very real.

    Israel refuses to abide by IAEA guidelines concerning its nukes as its nukes are distributed around the world. Israel would not be able to produce all of them. No delivery systems are needed as Israel’s nukes are already “in place”. Look for another “false flag” operation with the blame being put on Iran. You can bet that some Iranian passports will be found in the rubble.

    Israel also threatens to detonate nuclear devices in several US cities, thanks to Dolphin-Class submarines sold (or was it given?) to Israel by Germany. Talk about total INSANITY; the so-called “Samson Option” is it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Avery
    {arguably the most effective spy agency on the planet}

    Nonsense.

    Mossad has made many mistakes.
    The most spectacular was their failure to detect the surprise crossing of Suez by Egypt in the 1973 war. Israel was almost overrun, and was only saved by massive airlifting of new hardware by US (...which Arabs armies had destroyed with great effect).

    There was an incident where Israel forced down a business jet: the "most effective spy agency" had screwed up royally. The were no wanted Palestinians on board, but innocent 3rd parties.

    Israelis murdered an innocent Arab waiter in front his local wife in Sweden or Norway (I think), who was misidentified as a terrorist.

    Mossad failed to detect the hidden Hezbollah positions in the latest war with Lebanon, and Israeli military got a nasty reception: as a result, they in effect lost that little war.

    There is a bunch more of failures and screwups.

    Like the myths about IDFs, Mossad's supranatural abilities are also a manufactured myth.
    And how does the deliberate attack on USS Liberty count as a success in Mossad's column. They screwed up royally: if not for the treasonous act of POTUS Johnson who ordered US Navy ships (with air assets) racing to Liberty's assistance to stand down, Israeli pirates would have been shot to pieces.


    My vote for the most effective spy organization of all time is the KGB, although they have had failures too.
    During the cold war they had several spectacular penetrations of a highly competent adversary, the US. (e.g. the Walker family spy ring, the Falcon and the Snowman....)
    If memory serves KGB even penetrated the NSA.
    , @Anonymous
    "The IDF is establishing a special liaison unit to manage its growing contacts with Syrian civilians living across Israel’s northeastern border in the war-ravaged nation.

    "The Syrian regime of Bashar Assad holds almost no sway on the country’s Golan Heights perimeter with Israel, with large sections of the border held by various rebel and jihadi factions, including the Al-Qaeda-affiliated Nusra Front and Islamic State-affiliated Yarmouk Martyrs’ Brigades.

    Since the start of the Syrian civil war in 2011, which has claimed the lives of at least 250,000 people and displaced as many as half the country’s population, Israel’s army has treated some 2,000 Syrians who arrived wounded"
    http://www.timesofisrael.com/on-syrian-border-idf-sets-up-unit-that-will-work-with-syrian-civilians/

    Israelis through their multiple connections at all levels of US war machines spread and popularized the philosophy of widening the wars on "terrors" to ever y corner of" muslim" globe , to call any revolt as terror and to label all young men as terrorists.
  150. Cyrano says:
    @5371
    So the west only went to war with Germany when Germany attacked Russia? Tell me monsieur, what colour was the sky on the planet where history played out this way?

    I am sorry, in which universe the west went to war against Germany? I thought it was the other way around. Sorry son, I am afraid that the public education system in the country you’re from is not good enough to prepare you for discussions like this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    Look up whether Britain and France declared war on Germany, or the other way round. You may be surprised by what you find, if you can understand it!
  151. Avery says:
    @anarchyst
    It is easy to see the pervasiveness of Israel’s Mossad (if one knows where to look), arguably the most effective spy agency on the planet, please read “By Way of Deception” by Viktor Ostrowsky.

    From the Lavon affair (a “false flag” operation designed to draw the USA into a war with Egypt by making it look like Arabs bombed the U S interests section–a planted bomb exploded prematurely, exposing this as a Israeli planned and executed “incident”) to the deliberate attack on the USS Liberty (NOT “misidentification”, but another attempt to draw the USA into a war with Egypt and to hide the deliberate massacre of civilians in an Egyptian city, to Jonathon Pollard and NSA spying utilizing a company named Amdocs (which handles all US telephone billing records), you will find that Israel looks out for Israel’s interests ONLY. Normally, there is nothing wrong with a country looking out after it’s own interests, BUT Israel has a nasty habit of spying (and setting up) its “friends”.

    Who the hell died and appointed Israel the “master” of the middle east?? Iran (and all other middle-eastern countries) KNOWS that any nuclear “discharge” would affect the whole middle east . . . Any country that possesses nukes is not stupid . . . Israel has over a hundred nukes, manufactured with stolen American classified technology, refuses inspections of its nuclear facilities and is, in general, a “pain in the ass” to the rest of the world, along with (blackmailed) “big brother” United States of America.

    It is no secret that the U S State Department is infested with dual-nationality Israeli-Americans who form (and foment) the bulk of our neocon “foreign policy" straight from Tel Aviv. In fact there are 40 or so congressmen and senators with dual-nationality "ties" to Israel.
    Most people are unaware that Israel holds a “Damocles sword” over the world. Any attack on Israel will be met with a nuclear device being detonated in a city of Israel’s choosing. Israel calls this the “Samson option” and is very real.

    Israel refuses to abide by IAEA guidelines concerning its nukes as its nukes are distributed around the world. Israel would not be able to produce all of them. No delivery systems are needed as Israel’s nukes are already “in place”. Look for another “false flag” operation with the blame being put on Iran. You can bet that some Iranian passports will be found in the rubble.

    Israel also threatens to detonate nuclear devices in several US cities, thanks to Dolphin-Class submarines sold (or was it given?) to Israel by Germany. Talk about total INSANITY; the so-called “Samson Option” is it.

    {arguably the most effective spy agency on the planet}

    Nonsense.

    Mossad has made many mistakes.
    The most spectacular was their failure to detect the surprise crossing of Suez by Egypt in the 1973 war. Israel was almost overrun, and was only saved by massive airlifting of new hardware by US (…which Arabs armies had destroyed with great effect).

    There was an incident where Israel forced down a business jet: the “most effective spy agency” had screwed up royally. The were no wanted Palestinians on board, but innocent 3rd parties.

    Israelis murdered an innocent Arab waiter in front his local wife in Sweden or Norway (I think), who was misidentified as a terrorist.

    Mossad failed to detect the hidden Hezbollah positions in the latest war with Lebanon, and Israeli military got a nasty reception: as a result, they in effect lost that little war.

    There is a bunch more of failures and screwups.

    Like the myths about IDFs, Mossad’s supranatural abilities are also a manufactured myth.
    And how does the deliberate attack on USS Liberty count as a success in Mossad’s column. They screwed up royally: if not for the treasonous act of POTUS Johnson who ordered US Navy ships (with air assets) racing to Liberty’s assistance to stand down, Israeli pirates would have been shot to pieces.

    My vote for the most effective spy organization of all time is the KGB, although they have had failures too.
    During the cold war they had several spectacular penetrations of a highly competent adversary, the US. (e.g. the Walker family spy ring, the Falcon and the Snowman….)
    If memory serves KGB even penetrated the NSA.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kiza
    • Replies: @anarchyst
    Thank you for your concise analysis of the mossad. I learned something today. You are so right about the USS Liberty. Having lived through that time, it still sticks in my craw that we are paying Israel to this day, for what? We should have nuked Israel on that day...
  152. Art says:
    @annamaria
    "Naturally, I believe that a US First Strike on Russia is much more likely, but when things get crazy nobody is really immune from doing the stupidest crime."

    That the Puppeteers had managed to produce such Prez of United States as G.W. Bush - spectacularly ignorant in everything, lazy, gullible, narcissistic - has created a window into the world of the "haves." As we all could observe, this world is inhabited by the unscrupulous, ignorant, lazy, and narcissistic personalities that are not able to take responsibility for anything. They are parasitoids.

    On a top of the huge global nuclear arsenal, there are also the nuclear plants (the so-called "peaceful atom") that need terrific amount of money and efforts for maintaining the safety re control rods for eternity.

    “Naturally, I believe that a US First Strike on Russia is much more likely, but when things get crazy nobody is really immune from doing the stupidest crime.”

    The Russians are a worth adversary – they are not crazy – they will not go off the deep end.

    There is ZERO reason for us to be contentious with them right now.

    Let’s be honest, the problem with the Ukraine was set in motion by us – NOT them.

    We have no reason to move NATO up to their borders – this is 100% wrong.

    Of course this is all Jew business – end of story.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Of course this is all Jew business – end of story."

    You have this weird fixation on Jews. Why?
  153. anarchyst says:
    @Avery
    {arguably the most effective spy agency on the planet}

    Nonsense.

    Mossad has made many mistakes.
    The most spectacular was their failure to detect the surprise crossing of Suez by Egypt in the 1973 war. Israel was almost overrun, and was only saved by massive airlifting of new hardware by US (...which Arabs armies had destroyed with great effect).

    There was an incident where Israel forced down a business jet: the "most effective spy agency" had screwed up royally. The were no wanted Palestinians on board, but innocent 3rd parties.

    Israelis murdered an innocent Arab waiter in front his local wife in Sweden or Norway (I think), who was misidentified as a terrorist.

    Mossad failed to detect the hidden Hezbollah positions in the latest war with Lebanon, and Israeli military got a nasty reception: as a result, they in effect lost that little war.

    There is a bunch more of failures and screwups.

    Like the myths about IDFs, Mossad's supranatural abilities are also a manufactured myth.
    And how does the deliberate attack on USS Liberty count as a success in Mossad's column. They screwed up royally: if not for the treasonous act of POTUS Johnson who ordered US Navy ships (with air assets) racing to Liberty's assistance to stand down, Israeli pirates would have been shot to pieces.


    My vote for the most effective spy organization of all time is the KGB, although they have had failures too.
    During the cold war they had several spectacular penetrations of a highly competent adversary, the US. (e.g. the Walker family spy ring, the Falcon and the Snowman....)
    If memory serves KGB even penetrated the NSA.

    Thank you for your concise analysis of the mossad. I learned something today. You are so right about the USS Liberty. Having lived through that time, it still sticks in my craw that we are paying Israel to this day, for what? We should have nuked Israel on that day…

    Read More
  154. Someone or State is awaiting a N-clash between US n the Russ. Then she will reap high profit of civilization. And, she will feel free to claim that she is succsessful in avoiding skyshoot as doomed people or doomed state.

    The world now is governed by arms (not arms n legs). KISS U.

    Read More
  155. Kiza says:
    @Carroll Price
    We don't normally agree on much, but I agree with you about the deception connected with nuclear power. Which appears cost effective simply because the true cost associated with it have yet to be seriously discussed, much less paid in full. But when the true cost in money and lives becomes a reality for future generations forced to deal with the mountains of deadly radioactive waste, nuclear power will be understood to have been the most expensive deception foisted off on the industrialized world.

    Carroll, the only things that you are appear to definitely disagree on is your bagging of all Jews into the same bag. I know at least a few Jews who have nothing to do and are the victims, just like you and I, of the criminals and psychopaths running the global freak show who also happen to be Jewish. I felt that you threw up a tantrum at me just for claiming this, so here is a new opportunity for you to get angry. Otherwise, we are both good old paleo-conservatives/libertarians and could be pals. Peace.

    Read More
  156. @schmenz
    Carroll:

    Interesting comment, which makes me want to ask a question. Does Putin understand this animosity? I realize that diplomacy is necessary even when dealing with people you dislike but I am always amazed at how obsequious Putin tends to be towards people like the odious Netanyahu. Does he not sense the danger coming at him?

    Your thoughts?

    I wouldn’t know how to intelligently answer your question as to why Putin deals so gingerly with Israel. I am as mystified as you or anyone else. My best guess is that since most Jewish families in Israel (practically all the ruling class) came from Ukraine, Poland or Russia, and are thus misplaced Russians with little, if any, Semitic blood, Putin could very well feel a certain level of kinship with them. Putin also seems to enjoying doing a minimum amount to deal with problems and simply back off leave it at that. For instance, when the US staged their little coup in Kiev, I never understood why he didn’t dispatch Russian troops to occupy all of east Ukraine up to the Dnieper River, so the people of the region, most of whom are ethnic Russians and, like the inhabitants of Crimea had expressed a desire to become a part of the Russian Federation could not do so without further bloodshed. Same thing goes for Syria. Although still shaky, once Assad got back on his feet, and ISIS was on the ropes and practically surrounded and defeated by Russian air attacks, he simply eases off the devastation and starts playing footsy with John Kerry by agreeing to a cease-fire and holding peace talks with the same people who are responsible for starting the entire affair.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    Good questions about Putin. I did not find anybody who could explain the strange behavior of Putin with respect to Ukraine and Syria and him being so cozy with Israel.
  157. Corvinus says:
    @AmericanaCON
    I think it is his conclusion about the events that is now unfolding. My view is that the politicians of the West have different ideas for the future. Firstly, they want a world without borders were capital, products and people can move freely. This is beneficiary for corporations, banks and the very mobile elites. This is why they forcefully oppose the national state and nationalism. In general I think this is what people see. It is extremely obvious. Secondly, many seem supportive of a greater Israel. However, this is more an issue in United States, United Kingdom, France and Germany than in the European Union. The political elite in smaller countries seem to care less for this issue. Thirdly, politicians tend to do whatever their donors, corporate media and lobbyists tell them to do. This is where things get confusing as different actors have different ideas and want different things. If we look at what governments does;

    China is very concerned about shipping goods to the West. However, they have very little concern about liberal or neo-conservative projects. There has been some heavy lobbying to convince China to adopt the Global Warming narrative. However, the Chinese government continues to reject such narrative when it conflicts with their economic interest. Washington and Brussels has been pushed for “Liberal Democracy” in China for two decades but it simply does not stick. They don’t want it as they see Liberal Democracy as a Western invention they don’t need. It is simply bad for business the Chinese government argues. You see similar pattern in the rest of Eastern Asia including fairly westernized societies such as South Korea and Japan.

    The Eastern Asian governments are always on their toes to get trade deals with United States (and in lesser degree with European Union) but they will not sacrifice anything. Instead they play on the Western corporate greed and they do it very successfully. In the constantly burning Middle East the wealthy Gulf States has their agenda which often is about fighting ideological turf wars over religion, economics and ideology. What Washington or Brussels says is nothing they are deeply concerned about. Their lobbyist see to that things go smoothly in Washington and Brussels. When it comes to Africa and Latin-America they cannot simply function. Most of them are flawed democracies or dictatorships. Hence, they might vote with or against the West depending who is picking up their bills. Brussels have spent a lot of time to get The Eastern Europeans (and the Russians) to follow in line but their mentality is similar to the Asians. Their leaders will not do anything if they are does not receive a pay check.

    Look at the Visegrad nations (Poland, Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary) – they simply do not feel threatened by some liberal hack in the European Commission who tells them that they have admit migrants from third world countries. The European Union can only control countries like Romania which are in desperately in need for loans. The Western elites are losing ground rapidly. There is a new political dawn which goes against globalization and a liberal world order. This is the consequence of the insanity of liberalism have negatively hurt all economic sectors and the very life the people of the West and the small people across the world. I think Marine Le Pen was quite right when she said that we are heading towards a symbolic civil war in the West – between them who argues for globalization and those who argues for the national-state. I think the former will win.

    “Firstly, they want a world without borders were capital, products and people can move freely.”

    Undoubtedly, SOME leaders are pursing this agenda.

    “This is beneficiary for corporations, banks and the very mobile elites.”


    Capitalists. Do NOT these groups have the liberty to pursue their own endeavors?

    
“Thirdly, politicians tend to do whatever their donors, corporate media and lobbyists tell them to do.”

    You are downplaying politicians’ own interests and free will.

    “The Western elites are losing ground rapidly.”


    Define “western elites”. You are being vague.

    
“I think Marine Le Pen was quite right when she said that we are heading towards a symbolic civil war in the West – between them who argues for globalization and those who argues for the national-state. I think the former will win.”



    Symbolic, huh. Then that means the “western elites”, or whomever they are, are actually NOT “losing ground rapidly”.

    Read More
  158. Corvinus says:
    @Art

    “Naturally, I believe that a US First Strike on Russia is much more likely, but when things get crazy nobody is really immune from doing the stupidest crime.”
     
    The Russians are a worth adversary – they are not crazy – they will not go off the deep end.

    There is ZERO reason for us to be contentious with them right now.

    Let’s be honest, the problem with the Ukraine was set in motion by us – NOT them.

    We have no reason to move NATO up to their borders – this is 100% wrong.

    Of course this is all Jew business – end of story.

    “Of course this is all Jew business – end of story.”

    You have this weird fixation on Jews. Why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    If you have a more plausible analysis and explanation for what is going on in the west, let's have it, pleeeeese.
  159. Art says:

    You have this weird fixation on Jews. Why?

    Corvinus,

    Strike the word “weird” and you are correct. I think that their coercive Jew culture is behind most of our liberal troubles. The same with our US foreign policy around the world.

    I think that if people honestly look – they will come to the same conclusion.

    I am a philosophical Christian who is into treating life as sacred and forgiving the past – so I do not want revenge – I want them to cease control over America. It will be good for the whole world.

    Art

    Read More
  160. utu says:
    @Carroll Price
    I wouldn't know how to intelligently answer your question as to why Putin deals so gingerly with Israel. I am as mystified as you or anyone else. My best guess is that since most Jewish families in Israel (practically all the ruling class) came from Ukraine, Poland or Russia, and are thus misplaced Russians with little, if any, Semitic blood, Putin could very well feel a certain level of kinship with them. Putin also seems to enjoying doing a minimum amount to deal with problems and simply back off leave it at that. For instance, when the US staged their little coup in Kiev, I never understood why he didn't dispatch Russian troops to occupy all of east Ukraine up to the Dnieper River, so the people of the region, most of whom are ethnic Russians and, like the inhabitants of Crimea had expressed a desire to become a part of the Russian Federation could not do so without further bloodshed. Same thing goes for Syria. Although still shaky, once Assad got back on his feet, and ISIS was on the ropes and practically surrounded and defeated by Russian air attacks, he simply eases off the devastation and starts playing footsy with John Kerry by agreeing to a cease-fire and holding peace talks with the same people who are responsible for starting the entire affair.

    Good questions about Putin. I did not find anybody who could explain the strange behavior of Putin with respect to Ukraine and Syria and him being so cozy with Israel.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    This is a good example.
    http://news.antiwar.com/2016/05/25/russia-halts-strikes-on-syrian-al-qaeda-citing-rebel-requests/
    , @Kiza
    How about: Russia has too powerful an enemy already in the US in its satellites and vassals (big block). It does not need to make things worse by turning all of the world's Jewery against it as well. I do not have a problem with what Putin is doing, he is minding Russia's own business, not trying to right the world's wrongs. It is the US which keeps destroying the world by its Military Industrial Propaganda (MSM) Complex inventing the rights and the wrongs (always according to own interests) and devastating the world. Putin does not take the position that he always knows who/what is right or wrong, as I wrote, he minds the Russian own business.

    This is why he is such a respected leader outside of the brainwashed section of the world.

  161. 5371 says:
    @Cyrano
    I am sorry, in which universe the west went to war against Germany? I thought it was the other way around. Sorry son, I am afraid that the public education system in the country you’re from is not good enough to prepare you for discussions like this.

    Look up whether Britain and France declared war on Germany, or the other way round. You may be surprised by what you find, if you can understand it!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    The initiator of all hostilities was Germany, not the western allies. Poland had military treaties with both France and Britain which stipulated military assistance to Poland if Poland was attacked. Thus when Germany attacked Poland, it attacked all three of them – because Germany was aware of their military alliance. Do you understand the logic here my friend?

    Same as is the case with NATO today. If someone attacked any NATO country, implicitly that’s a declaration of war against - say US, because of the famed article 5 or as I like to call it the 3 musketeers article – one for all, all for one.

    Although Hitler hoped that Britain and France will chicken out of their military obligations to Poland (and he was almost right) - Britain and France did declare war on Germany - but halfheartedly and then did almost nothing for 8 months hoping for a miracle. The miracle came in the form of Germany actually attacking them after what’s known as the “Phoney War”.

    In reality, the declaration of war by France and Britain against Germany was just a formality, because Germany was the initiator all the way.
  162. helena says:
    @Corvinus
    "Of course this is all Jew business – end of story."

    You have this weird fixation on Jews. Why?

    If you have a more plausible analysis and explanation for what is going on in the west, let’s have it, pleeeeese.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    pleeeeese, Helena, you are too smart to fall in line with all these Hitler fanboys.
    , @Corvinus
    "If you have a more plausible analysis and explanation for what is going on in the west, let’s have it, pleeeeese."

    Would you even believe it if I offered my own two cents worth? Better yet, would you be WILLING to believe it?
  163. Duglarri says:
    @Mis(ter)Anthrope
    Can someone please explain to me why the neo-cons are so obsessed with stirring up trouble with the Russians? Are they just doing the bidding of the military industrial complex?

    This is a serious question. I can see no logical explanation for it.

    Why do the neocons hate Russia? Israel.

    Russia is a very, very old enemy of Israel. Russia supplied all the weapons that Arabs used to fight Israel for decades.

    I had an email exchange a few years ago with a Canadian newspaper columnist who flatly argued that Canada should be at war with Syria. And this was before the Arab Spring. Why on earth, I asked. For what possible reason? The reason was all the firing over the border from Syria against Israeli farms. And again I had to ask, what, you mean the cross-border shelling that ended in 1953?

    Israelis have long memories, and will never forgive Russia for having supplied all those tanks that Egypt used in 1973. Destroying Russia is old business for them.

    Israel also has a lingering concern that at some point, some time, Russian nuclear weapons might just possibly be pointed at them.

    For their part, Neocons will hold these same objectives, only more so, and more emotionally, in their inevitable habit of being more Israeli than Israelis.

    For the Neocons, it’s a matter of defending Israel.

    And payback.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    I do not dispute the points in your comment, it is not only the fathers and the mothers of the Ziocons who dislike Russia, although many immigrés in Israel from Russia actually still like Russia very much.

    But I note your exchange with a Canadian newspaper columnist who argued that Canada should be at war with Syria. You passed over this as if it were a normal thing!!!!! This is wonderful example why people hate Jews so much, in every country of the world. If I were Canadian and some moron argued that my country should bomb another country because his motherland does not like this other country, I would tell him to go and f*** himself. The fact that Jews can get away with such BS and actually get some countries bombed by third parties just creates a lot of accumulated anger which will come to boil one day and pogroms could happen again. Unfortunately, all pogroms tend to kill more innocents than the guilty. Most Jews are not extremists like your "Canadian newspaper columnist", there are many, many good guys.

    As to Jewish memory you write about, many normal nations do not have the benefit of revenge and just learn to share this planet with their enemies, they move on. You suggest that the Jews do not have to, they can hold a grudge or be victims forever. Unfortunately, this is also not always true, well illustrated by the pact between the US Ziocons and the Ukrainian Nazis, both sides opportunistically using each other for the time being. You are aware, for example, that Kolomoyskyi was paying the Ukrainian Nazis, whose fathers were killing Ukrainian Jews during WW2, to fight Putin Jew. Therefore, interests dominate the Jewish elites, not grudges.

    , @bunga
    How did Israel come into existence ? It came riding piggyback on British Army .
    It sustained itself by smuggling arms from EU ,from US from neutral countries and by forcing America behind the cloak of American neutrality , to send arms

    Read for more-
    Spy Trade: How Israel's Lobby Undermines America's Economy Paperback – November 1, 2009
    by Grant F. Smith (Author), Michael Scheuer (Foreword)

    Arab countries never attacked Israel until 1973 war where Arabs countries did attack Israel before Israel did

    Soviet came into only only after "Suez " attacks and increased after 1967
  164. Duglarri says:
    @Kiza
    Yours is actually a highly valid question, because at least most Americans would have no idea. I could provide my reading.

    Firstly and most importantly, Russia is a grand prize unlike China. Especially if the Global Warming is real (forget about the get-rich word "Anthropological"). Most of the Siberian rivers flow to the North and get blocked by ice at the exit into the North Sea. This makes most of the land into marshes. Once unblocked, the marshes drain out and you have amazingly fertile never planted, nutrient rich, unpolluted land for GMO free natural agriculture. But agriculture does not even come close to the mineral and oil riches of the area. Therefore, splitting Russia into the European and Asian part is exceptionally attractive to the Rulers To Be of the World.

    Secondly, Russia is the target of convenience. The US and the West are in deep debt, normally all budgets would have to be cut, especially the unproductive military. Soviet Union has been an old punching bag for the Western MIC, it was very easy to re-target propaganda from the SU onto its left-over - Russia. The weakness of this contrived narrative is that, except for nuclear weapons, Russia is a military par of just UK. The Western MIC has to stretch its MSM to the absolute limits of credulity by claiming Russian aggression and expansionism, with what? Anybody who would bother to look at military or economic statistics would laugh at such claims.

    Thirdly, like most European countries, the Russians have had enough of Jewish financial shenanigans in their country and were not very friendly to the fathers and mothers of many a necon. The Russians have never done the German genocide of the Jews, but they are a much easier target than the Germans, plus see number one above - the gain.

    Hi Kiza- Northern areas of Russia fertile if the temperature goes up? No, unfortunately. It’s all muskeg, which is basically a thin layer of moss over ice. Since there’s never been vegetation there there is in fact no soil at all. Signed: Canada

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza

    Hi Kiza- Northern areas of Russia fertile if the temperature goes up? No
     
    Where did I write the Northern Areas of Russia? You are putting your words into my comment. I wrote that the majority of Siberian rivers flow to the North and finish in the North Sea. To explain better to the naysayers: due to former freezing of the Northern Sea for most of the year, the Northern coast of Russia was in permafrost and this blocked the draining of these rivers coming from the South, which was why the central area was marshy. Once the Northern Sea reduced/stopped freezing, the rivers could drain out and Russia got three main benefits from climate change:
    1) the central marshland slowly turns into fertile land (unused before and still rich in nutrients drained out of heavily farmed areas elsewhere),
    2) the Northern Sea Transportation Corridor between Europe and Asia opens up, and
    3) the North Asian continental shelf gets exposed for oil exploitation.

    What you describe as muskeg is the name used in Canada and Alaska, it is also caused by permafrost. I know that you guys in Canada are totally brainwashed in general (the third most brainwashed nation on the planet, after US and Japan). This is particularly the case against Russia because it is a competitor for the new North Sea sources of oil, which your corporations want to own all, not to share with Russia. Canada is developing cold-climate technologies similar to the Russian technologies, but the Russians have a head start. This is why Russia installed S400 in the North, to defend against any unfair competition for oil. Where did they get an idea of unfair competition?

    My personal belief is that climate change is happening because of slight changes in Earth's rotation and the Sun's activity. This is making some parts of the planet warmer and other cooler. In Australia, where I live, the climate has significantly cooled down in the last 12 years or so.

  165. @utu
    Good questions about Putin. I did not find anybody who could explain the strange behavior of Putin with respect to Ukraine and Syria and him being so cozy with Israel.
    Read More
  166. iffen says:
    @helena
    If you have a more plausible analysis and explanation for what is going on in the west, let's have it, pleeeeese.

    pleeeeese, Helena, you are too smart to fall in line with all these Hitler fanboys.

    Read More
    • Replies: @helena
    Neither the paranoia that jewish people feel about germanic people, nor the paranoia that germanic people feel about jewish people, is based on a false premise. The rivalry will continue until one or other group disappears, dissipates or is subsumed by the other. Ditto for all groups that have a belief in themselves. You conceive yourself as an American but you're struggling to find other people who do too, because most people conceive themselves to be an ethnicity, an ideology, or both. But not many people nowadays conceive themselves to be solely or even primarily a nationality.

    If you had to appoint a history teacher from these comment threads, would you pick the commenter who best references his/her arguments or the commenter whose comments you agree with?
  167. mtn cur says:
    @Kiza
    Well yes, you are right, but please consider that the priests of the Green God (the vampires as you call them) are much, much louder than the truth seekers. The true environmental issues are almost unnoticeable underneath the blaring of money making opportunities. This is why I am doing my own green whilst paying, like everybody, to the priesthood of the Green God through all kinds of Government levies and taxes. But we are getting off topic.

    Outing those whose tactics include using the facts to deceive is among the main purposes of the UNZ review, no? The bonus confusion is worthy of its’ own study.

    Read More
  168. Kiza says:
    @Duglarri
    Hi Kiza- Northern areas of Russia fertile if the temperature goes up? No, unfortunately. It's all muskeg, which is basically a thin layer of moss over ice. Since there's never been vegetation there there is in fact no soil at all. Signed: Canada

    Hi Kiza- Northern areas of Russia fertile if the temperature goes up? No

    Where did I write the Northern Areas of Russia? You are putting your words into my comment. I wrote that the majority of Siberian rivers flow to the North and finish in the North Sea. To explain better to the naysayers: due to former freezing of the Northern Sea for most of the year, the Northern coast of Russia was in permafrost and this blocked the draining of these rivers coming from the South, which was why the central area was marshy. Once the Northern Sea reduced/stopped freezing, the rivers could drain out and Russia got three main benefits from climate change:
    1) the central marshland slowly turns into fertile land (unused before and still rich in nutrients drained out of heavily farmed areas elsewhere),
    2) the Northern Sea Transportation Corridor between Europe and Asia opens up, and
    3) the North Asian continental shelf gets exposed for oil exploitation.

    What you describe as muskeg is the name used in Canada and Alaska, it is also caused by permafrost. I know that you guys in Canada are totally brainwashed in general (the third most brainwashed nation on the planet, after US and Japan). This is particularly the case against Russia because it is a competitor for the new North Sea sources of oil, which your corporations want to own all, not to share with Russia. Canada is developing cold-climate technologies similar to the Russian technologies, but the Russians have a head start. This is why Russia installed S400 in the North, to defend against any unfair competition for oil. Where did they get an idea of unfair competition?

    My personal belief is that climate change is happening because of slight changes in Earth’s rotation and the Sun’s activity. This is making some parts of the planet warmer and other cooler. In Australia, where I live, the climate has significantly cooled down in the last 12 years or so.

    Read More
  169. Kiza says:
    @Duglarri
    Why do the neocons hate Russia? Israel.

    Russia is a very, very old enemy of Israel. Russia supplied all the weapons that Arabs used to fight Israel for decades.

    I had an email exchange a few years ago with a Canadian newspaper columnist who flatly argued that Canada should be at war with Syria. And this was before the Arab Spring. Why on earth, I asked. For what possible reason? The reason was all the firing over the border from Syria against Israeli farms. And again I had to ask, what, you mean the cross-border shelling that ended in 1953?

    Israelis have long memories, and will never forgive Russia for having supplied all those tanks that Egypt used in 1973. Destroying Russia is old business for them.

    Israel also has a lingering concern that at some point, some time, Russian nuclear weapons might just possibly be pointed at them.

    For their part, Neocons will hold these same objectives, only more so, and more emotionally, in their inevitable habit of being more Israeli than Israelis.

    For the Neocons, it's a matter of defending Israel.

    And payback.

    I do not dispute the points in your comment, it is not only the fathers and the mothers of the Ziocons who dislike Russia, although many immigrés in Israel from Russia actually still like Russia very much.

    But I note your exchange with a Canadian newspaper columnist who argued that Canada should be at war with Syria. You passed over this as if it were a normal thing!!!!! This is wonderful example why people hate Jews so much, in every country of the world. If I were Canadian and some moron argued that my country should bomb another country because his motherland does not like this other country, I would tell him to go and f*** himself. The fact that Jews can get away with such BS and actually get some countries bombed by third parties just creates a lot of accumulated anger which will come to boil one day and pogroms could happen again. Unfortunately, all pogroms tend to kill more innocents than the guilty. Most Jews are not extremists like your “Canadian newspaper columnist”, there are many, many good guys.

    As to Jewish memory you write about, many normal nations do not have the benefit of revenge and just learn to share this planet with their enemies, they move on. You suggest that the Jews do not have to, they can hold a grudge or be victims forever. Unfortunately, this is also not always true, well illustrated by the pact between the US Ziocons and the Ukrainian Nazis, both sides opportunistically using each other for the time being. You are aware, for example, that Kolomoyskyi was paying the Ukrainian Nazis, whose fathers were killing Ukrainian Jews during WW2, to fight Putin Jew. Therefore, interests dominate the Jewish elites, not grudges.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Mr. Kolomojsky used to be a leader of Jewish Community of Ukraine (he also has triple citizenship, including Israeli)
    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.620845
    And what could be more natural than Israeli citizen financing neo-nazis inUkraine?
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/07/ukraine-merges-nazis-and-islamists/
    http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/06/24/ukraine-jewish-billionaires-batallion-sent-to-fight-pro-russian-militias/
    Mr. Kolomojsky is suspected of involvement in MH 17 tragedy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrfKZUttEwE
    , @Carroll Price
    Brilliant as always.
    , @bunga
    This is interesting on many levels and will [possibly explain a lot of animosities between West and Islam ( Arab )

    It will not be nowhere like this that someone from the Jewish community will ask/demand Canadian leaders or media to mount an assault or mount repeated assault on a country not at war with Canad or US or UK.. The persons or groups of them ( Sheldon Saban PNAC crowds OSP of Sharon gang in Bush administration ) from the community would provide the reason – casus belli and could be anything from violation of western values to conspiring to invade the western land or to engage in immediate terrorism . The process can take years if not decade Exactly that is what happened in case of Iraq and was slowly moving to that direction in case of Iran.

    This way Israel will export its violence abroad, engulf and ensnare other nations who have no beef or skin in the disputes .
    Israel will label it ex post facto. Some paid or deluded or ill -informed man will call it clash of civilization s.

  170. Kiza says:
    @utu
    Good questions about Putin. I did not find anybody who could explain the strange behavior of Putin with respect to Ukraine and Syria and him being so cozy with Israel.

    How about: Russia has too powerful an enemy already in the US in its satellites and vassals (big block). It does not need to make things worse by turning all of the world’s Jewery against it as well. I do not have a problem with what Putin is doing, he is minding Russia’s own business, not trying to right the world’s wrongs. It is the US which keeps destroying the world by its Military Industrial Propaganda (MSM) Complex inventing the rights and the wrongs (always according to own interests) and devastating the world. Putin does not take the position that he always knows who/what is right or wrong, as I wrote, he minds the Russian own business.

    This is why he is such a respected leader outside of the brainwashed section of the world.

    Read More
    • Agree: Rurik
    • Replies: @Avery
    {How about: Russia has too powerful an enemy already in the US in its satellites and vassals (big block). It does not need to make things worse by turning all of the world’s Jewery against it as well. I do not have a problem with what Putin is doing, he is minding Russia’s own business, not trying to right the world’s wrongs.}

    Well said Kiza.

    People forget what RF is facing.
    Despite her size, nukes, etc, RF is facing formidable odds.
    US, plus powerhouse economies of EU under orders of US Neocons, Canada, Australia, .... are all lined up against RF.

    Compare the population and economy of RF to the list above, and should be clear that Russia needs to mind it own business, and not add more enemies and adversaries if she can help it.
    It is an undeniable fact that Jewish diaspora has tremendous influence on the governments of US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Australia,....

    So why should Russia and Putin add more problems to what they already have to deal with.
    For all practical purposes Russia is alone against a formidable economic and military block with enormous built-in advantages.
    People forget that barely 20 years ago or so, Russia almost imploded under Yeltsin.
    Russia needs time to rebuild its economy and ween it off of too much dependence on the West.
    Same with its markets, its financial transactions infrastructure (off SWIFT), etc.

    It takes time.

    Russian leadership is wisely choosing where and when to fight, and where and when not to get goaded into a fight they can't win. They have limited resources and have to use them judiciously. What they have accomplished and how far they have come since the disasters years of Yeltsin is proof enough that they know what they are doing.
  171. Corvinus says:
    @helena
    If you have a more plausible analysis and explanation for what is going on in the west, let's have it, pleeeeese.

    “If you have a more plausible analysis and explanation for what is going on in the west, let’s have it, pleeeeese.”

    Would you even believe it if I offered my own two cents worth? Better yet, would you be WILLING to believe it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    You may choose to keep your great wisdom a secret, of course.
  172. Cyrano says:
    @5371
    Look up whether Britain and France declared war on Germany, or the other way round. You may be surprised by what you find, if you can understand it!

    The initiator of all hostilities was Germany, not the western allies. Poland had military treaties with both France and Britain which stipulated military assistance to Poland if Poland was attacked. Thus when Germany attacked Poland, it attacked all three of them – because Germany was aware of their military alliance. Do you understand the logic here my friend?

    Same as is the case with NATO today. If someone attacked any NATO country, implicitly that’s a declaration of war against – say US, because of the famed article 5 or as I like to call it the 3 musketeers article – one for all, all for one.

    Although Hitler hoped that Britain and France will chicken out of their military obligations to Poland (and he was almost right) – Britain and France did declare war on Germany – but halfheartedly and then did almost nothing for 8 months hoping for a miracle. The miracle came in the form of Germany actually attacking them after what’s known as the “Phoney War”.

    In reality, the declaration of war by France and Britain against Germany was just a formality, because Germany was the initiator all the way.

    Read More
    • Agree: Regnum Nostrum
    • Disagree: SolontoCroesus
    • Replies: @5371
    Everyone who read your pathetic attempt at obfuscation is the stupider for it, but few of them, even so, will be close to you or your bird-brained friend "Regnum Nostrum" in stupidity.
    , @SolontoCroesus
    Do you understand that 2 comes AFTER 1 and 1939 comes AFTER 1918 and even AFTER 1938, my friend?

    Q: What was at the heart of the conflict between Poland and Germany?

    A:

    After WW1, the Versailles Treaty made former Prussian city of Danzig a quasi-independent city-state. It was governed by a local parliament while was overseen by a League of Nations appointed high commissioner. Being surrounded by Polish territory, the port facilities were also open for Polish use, but the Polish did not take comfort in mere usage. The Polish wanted Danzig within its boundaries, but the predominantly ethnic German city wished for the status quo. When the Nazi Party rose to power in Germany, many recruitment efforts by the party were active in Danzig. By 1933, 38% of the Danzig parliament was consisted of Nazi Party members, and a similarly significant percentage of the population expressed their wish to become a part of Germany.
     
    Q: What did Versailles have to say about the rights of peoples of different ethnicities in the states whose boundaries Versailles negotiators reconfigured?

    A: Ironically, according to Edwin Black in The Transfer Agreement, in response to the demands of Jewish zionists who were heavily represented in Wilson's delegation. In Black's words:

    "American Jewish Congress leaders returned from Versailles in triumph. They had helped create a Jewish homeland, as well as secure international guarantees for minorities in Europe."
     
    Black has more to say about Jewish activism in Poland, vis a vis Danzig; regarding respect for ethnic German rights in Poland; and with respect to Polish-Jewish provocations of Germany--

    "As W. W. Cohen [ ] was exhorting his fellow Americans to fight back economically, the Jews of Vilna, Poland, were proposing the identical tactic. Poland contained Europe's most concentrated Jewish population, nearly 3.5 million, mainly residing in closely knit urban communities. They were economically and politically cohesive, often militant. Bordering Hitler's Germany, Polish Jewry could organize an anti-Nazi boycott that would not only be financially irritating to the Reich, but highly visible in central Europe. The Jews of Vilna held a boycott rally on March 20, 1933. To recruit inter political . . . support, they incorporated their boycott movement into the larger national furor over the Polish Corridor. . . .German access via a corridor traversing Poland and controlled by Poland was part of the Versailles Treaty. Poland, unwilling to relinquish its Versailles territorial rights, reacted defensively, and rumors of a preemptive Polish invasion of Germany were rampant.
    By identifying their anti-Nazi boycott as national rather than sectarian retaliation, the Vilna Jews sought to construct the model for other worried Europeans. Vilna's March 20 mass anti-Hitler rally urged all Polish patriots and Jews throughout the world to battle for Polish territorial defense by not buying or selling German goods. . . ."
     
    Black repeats the fact that Polish military forces were champing at the bit and positioning themselves to march on Germany as early as the first-quarter of 1933. Germany was not in a position to defend itself against such an attack, as the Poles, as well as the Jewish provocateurs, well knew.

    As Maj. Gen. Gerd Schultz-Rhonhof states in "1939: The War That had Many Fathers," in 1933 the ratio of French military superiority to Germany was 12-to-1, and counting the forces of France and its allies the ratio rises to 97-to-1.

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

    Q: What motivated W. W. Cohen to react so strongly to the fact that the NSDAP had taken power in Germany?

    A: Edwin Black cites two specific situations: First, the publication in the German-Jewish press and in American-Jewish newspapers of "atrocity propaganda" similar to that charged against the Germans in WWI, propaganda that was refuted and rejected by Jews resident in Germany, and belied by the opening statement of Breitman & Lichtman in "FDR and the Jews," that NSDAP actually quelled physical violence against Jews in Germany. In other words, Jewish persons lied in a gambit to provoke a war, similar to what is taking place today wrt to Russia. This is why more and more people are demanding Liberty from the Lobby -- the Israel/zionist lobby that has distorted US foreign policy for nigh on a century.

    Second, Black reports that on

    "March 19, 1933 . . .the swastika was unfurled over German consulates in Jerusalem and Jaffa. Germany maintained the two consulates in Palestine as part of its normal diplomatic relations with Great Britain. Angry Tel Aviv Jews prepared to storm the consulates and burn the new German flag."
     
    Think about that for add minute: Jews who occupied space in Palestine under the umbrella of the British mandate were so angered that a German government with legitimate consulates in the British mandate should raise its own flag over its own territory that it was prepared to burn it, and did succeed in bringing economic pressure to bear on Germany in a bid to so weaken that economy that the government -- and its flag -- would fall. (Ultimately, Jewish agents were significant participants in burning not the German consulates in Palestine but 75% of Germany and at least 600,000 German civilians.)

    But back to our chain of logic --

    It's March, 1933, and Jews in USA and in Poland are inciting not only their fellow Jews but also other Poles to hate Germans in their midst as well as at their border, hatred that included credible threats of Polish military action against Germany.

    Jews "throughout the world" including, as noted, in Poland, pursued an economic boycott against Germany from that time, in mid-March 1933, until just after USA declared war on Japan in Dec. 1941.

    As Black stated in the quote, above, Polish Jews worked to conflate Jewish anti-German animus with the Danzig question in order to draw non-Jews and non-Poles into the frenzy.

    Nevertheless, diplomats in Germany's NSDAP government pursued a negotiated settlement of the Danzig conflict:

    From the notes of Polish Ambassador Lipski of Conversation with Joachim von Ribbentrop:

    In a conversation on 24 October 1938 over luncheon . . . Herr von Ribbentrop put forward a proposal for a basic settlement of issues between Poland and Germany which, as he expressed himself, would remove the causes of future strife.

    This included the reunion of Danzig with the Reich, while Poland would be assured of retaining railway and economic facilities there.
    Poland would agree to the building of an extraterritorial superhighway and railway line across Pomerania. In exchange, von Ribbentrop mentioned the possibility of an extension of the Polish-German agreement by twenty-five years and a guarantee of Polish-German frontiers. As a possible sphere for future cooperation between the two countries, the German Foreign Minister specified joint action in colonial matters, the emigration of Jews from Poland, and a joint policy toward Russia on the basis of the Anti-Comintern Pact.
    Herr von Ribbentrop asked the Ambassador to communicate his suggestions to Minister Beck; he would like to discuss these matters with him, with the Ambassador's participation....
     
    Poland reject the offer:

    On 19 November [1938], Ambassador Lipski requested an interview with Ribbentrop. In diplomatic, but firm language, Warsaw rejected all the German proposals and offered no grounds for future discussions. Pointedly, Poland thereafter initiated a series of conversations with the Soviet Union, and published a joint communique about them on 26 November.. Ribbentrop's reaction was startlingly moderate.
     

    "On 5 January 1939, Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck had a personal meeting with Hitler and found him on his best behavior. Obviously, nothing had as yet been settled concerning German policy toward Poland.
    . . . the Führer wished to repeat once more that since 1934 there had been no change in the German attitude toward Poland. In order to arrive at a definitive settlement of the questions still pending between the two countries, one ought not to confine oneself to the rather negative agreement of 1934, but should try to bring the individual problems to a definitive settlement by treaty. . . .
    With regard to the Corridor, . . . the Führer pointed out that it was of course completely absurd to want to deprive Poland of her outlet to the sea. If Poland were bottled up in this manner, she might, in view of the tension that would thereby arise, be likened to a loaded revolver whose trigger might be pulled at any minute. Thus, the necessity for Poland to have access to the sea definitely had to be recognized. In the same way, however, having a connection with East Prussia was a necessity for Germany; here too, by using entirely new methods of solution one could perhaps do justice to the interests of both.

    If it should be possible on this rational basis to bring about a definitive settlement of the individual problems, which would of course have to do justice to both sides, the time would have come to supplement in a positive sense, in the manner of the agreements with France, the rather negative declaration of 1934 by a German guarantee of Poland's frontiers clearly laid down in a treaty. Poland would then obtain the great advantage of having her frontier with Germany, including the Corridor, secured by treaty. "
     
    25 - 26 March 1939 more meetings were held: Polish ambassador Lipski met with Ribbentropp; Lipski came away with the message that "The Führer does not wish to solve the Danzig question by force, however. He does not wish to drive Poland into the arms of Britain by this means."

    "when the British issued their guarantee to Poland, on 3 April 1939, he [Hitler] reacted in typical fashion. He issued a new directive for war; obviously, he wanted to be ready for all contingencies. "
     
    Then,

    11 April 1939 Adolf Hitler Directive for War Against Poland

    The present attitude of Poland requires ... the initiation of military preparations, to remove if necessary any threat from this direction for ever.

    1. German relations with Poland continue to be based on the principles of avoiding any disturbances.
    Should Poland, however, change her policy towards Germany ... and adopt a threatening attitude, a final settlement might become necessary in spite of the Treaty in force with Poland.

    The aim then would be to destroy Polish military strength and create in the East a situation which satisfies the requirements of national defense. The Free State of Danzig will be proclaimed a part of the Reich territory at the outbreak of hostilities, at the latest.

    The political leaders consider it their task in this case to isolate Poland if possible, that is to say, to limit the war to Poland only. The development of increasing internal crises in France and resulting British restraint might produce such a situation in the not too distant future. Intervention by Russia . . . cannot be expected to be of any use to Poland, because this would mean Poland's destruction by Bolshevism.
     

    The French, [who had one of the strongest armies in the west], in fact, promised the Poles in mid-May 1939 that in the event of German aggression against Poland, France would launch an offensive against the Germans "no later than fifteen days after mobilization". This promise was sealed in a solemn treaty signed between Poland and France. . . .
     
    As the notes from the Polish diplomats indicate, by an agreement in 1934; on several occasions in 1938; and in January, March and April 1939; and as Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof further reveals, up until the very last moment in August, 1939, German negotiators and Hitler himself carried on extensive negotiations, and made generous overtures to the Polish in an effort to resolve the Danzig conflict without violence.

    Jewish zionist propagandists and warmongers in USA and Poland began from shortly after the NSDAP took power in 1933 to inflame passions and incite hatred of Germans, in service of Jewish purposes that were deliberately conflated with Polish grievances, which derailed the possibility of nonviolent resolution.

    Working conclusion: Cyrano's logic does not square with the facts. It's bunk.
  173. annamaria says:
    @Kiza
    I do not dispute the points in your comment, it is not only the fathers and the mothers of the Ziocons who dislike Russia, although many immigrés in Israel from Russia actually still like Russia very much.

    But I note your exchange with a Canadian newspaper columnist who argued that Canada should be at war with Syria. You passed over this as if it were a normal thing!!!!! This is wonderful example why people hate Jews so much, in every country of the world. If I were Canadian and some moron argued that my country should bomb another country because his motherland does not like this other country, I would tell him to go and f*** himself. The fact that Jews can get away with such BS and actually get some countries bombed by third parties just creates a lot of accumulated anger which will come to boil one day and pogroms could happen again. Unfortunately, all pogroms tend to kill more innocents than the guilty. Most Jews are not extremists like your "Canadian newspaper columnist", there are many, many good guys.

    As to Jewish memory you write about, many normal nations do not have the benefit of revenge and just learn to share this planet with their enemies, they move on. You suggest that the Jews do not have to, they can hold a grudge or be victims forever. Unfortunately, this is also not always true, well illustrated by the pact between the US Ziocons and the Ukrainian Nazis, both sides opportunistically using each other for the time being. You are aware, for example, that Kolomoyskyi was paying the Ukrainian Nazis, whose fathers were killing Ukrainian Jews during WW2, to fight Putin Jew. Therefore, interests dominate the Jewish elites, not grudges.

    Mr. Kolomojsky used to be a leader of Jewish Community of Ukraine (he also has triple citizenship, including Israeli)

    http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.620845

    And what could be more natural than Israeli citizen financing neo-nazis inUkraine?

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/07/07/ukraine-merges-nazis-and-islamists/

    http://www.algemeiner.com/2014/06/24/ukraine-jewish-billionaires-batallion-sent-to-fight-pro-russian-militias/

    Mr. Kolomojsky is suspected of involvement in MH 17 tragedy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NrfKZUttEwE

    Read More
  174. bunga says:
    @Duglarri
    Why do the neocons hate Russia? Israel.

    Russia is a very, very old enemy of Israel. Russia supplied all the weapons that Arabs used to fight Israel for decades.

    I had an email exchange a few years ago with a Canadian newspaper columnist who flatly argued that Canada should be at war with Syria. And this was before the Arab Spring. Why on earth, I asked. For what possible reason? The reason was all the firing over the border from Syria against Israeli farms. And again I had to ask, what, you mean the cross-border shelling that ended in 1953?

    Israelis have long memories, and will never forgive Russia for having supplied all those tanks that Egypt used in 1973. Destroying Russia is old business for them.

    Israel also has a lingering concern that at some point, some time, Russian nuclear weapons might just possibly be pointed at them.

    For their part, Neocons will hold these same objectives, only more so, and more emotionally, in their inevitable habit of being more Israeli than Israelis.

    For the Neocons, it's a matter of defending Israel.

    And payback.

    How did Israel come into existence ? It came riding piggyback on British Army .
    It sustained itself by smuggling arms from EU ,from US from neutral countries and by forcing America behind the cloak of American neutrality , to send arms

    Read for more-
    Spy Trade: How Israel’s Lobby Undermines America’s Economy Paperback – November 1, 2009
    by Grant F. Smith (Author), Michael Scheuer (Foreword)

    Arab countries never attacked Israel until 1973 war where Arabs countries did attack Israel before Israel did

    Soviet came into only only after “Suez ” attacks and increased after 1967

    Read More
  175. @Cyrano
    You should actually know the answer to this one. The way you postulated your question whether the war against Nazi Germany 1933-1939 was unavoidable is like the choice was up to the Western Powers to make. It wasn’t. Germany made that decision for them and yes - it was unavoidable. I know, technically France and Britain declared war on Germany after the invasion of Poland, but they didn’t actually attack Germany I guess out of fear that they might hurt some German sensibilities.

    Remember the “Phony War”? Then Germany decided to put some reality into the “Phony war” by actually attacking France and Britain with total disregard as to whether they are going to hurt their feelings or not. As for the US, again it was Germany who declared war on them, not the other way around, so again, US had no choice there at all.

    As for the current tensions with Russia, I don’t think that they will lead to war. It’s just a result of a failed Neocon plan to wrestle Ukraine out of Russia’s orbit. The problem with the Neocons is that not only their original scripts are awful, but when they come up with a sequel script – that’s not an Oscar winning material either. Remember Iraq invasion in 2003? The original rationale was WMD, when that didn’t pan out, then it was pure western humanism on display. They did it to remove a dictator and finally bring democracy to the yearning masses. How noble.

    According to the Neocon manifesto, the post cold war objective of US is to prevent re-emergence of any challenger to American supremacy either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere. Just because Zbig said that the only thing missing from making Russia a superpower again is Ukraine doesn’t make it an irrefutable truth. What does Zbig know about anything. He still says that the choice US made in 1979 was the right one. Tell that to the 9/11 victims. Forget about suing SA for 9/11. Sue Zbig, it was that degenerate’s idea that started the whole thing.

    Love the convenient and emotional labeling of the UK and France as “the Western Powers.” So Germany was not a Western civilization and culture?

    The label “Western Powers” grouping US together with UK and France, seems merely to ASSUME that the US should have intervened, and intervened on the side it did — with the effect of devastating Germany and helping the Soviet Communists subjugate the people of central and eastern Europe quite as brutally as the Nazis did or would have.

    The US should have stayed out of WW2. Nobody has even come close to demonstrating any reasonable chance that Germany would have been able to effectively occupy and pacify a vast Russian territory and somehow still attack the USA.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Germany declared war on US on November 11, 1941. How do you suggest that US should have dealt with that? Ignore the declaration of war?
  176. 5371 says:
    @Cyrano
    The initiator of all hostilities was Germany, not the western allies. Poland had military treaties with both France and Britain which stipulated military assistance to Poland if Poland was attacked. Thus when Germany attacked Poland, it attacked all three of them – because Germany was aware of their military alliance. Do you understand the logic here my friend?

    Same as is the case with NATO today. If someone attacked any NATO country, implicitly that’s a declaration of war against - say US, because of the famed article 5 or as I like to call it the 3 musketeers article – one for all, all for one.

    Although Hitler hoped that Britain and France will chicken out of their military obligations to Poland (and he was almost right) - Britain and France did declare war on Germany - but halfheartedly and then did almost nothing for 8 months hoping for a miracle. The miracle came in the form of Germany actually attacking them after what’s known as the “Phoney War”.

    In reality, the declaration of war by France and Britain against Germany was just a formality, because Germany was the initiator all the way.

    Everyone who read your pathetic attempt at obfuscation is the stupider for it, but few of them, even so, will be close to you or your bird-brained friend “Regnum Nostrum” in stupidity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Don’t get angry with me. I told you that your public education system has not prepared you for discussion on this intellectual level. It’s not that they didn’t teach you some useful stuff in your schools such as: “You are all special” and “You are all equal”, and I suspect that in the last few years they might have added to their curriculum another pearl of wisdom: “You are all exceptional”. That still has done nothing to enable you to intelligently discuss things.
  177. jg says: • Website

    The Treason of 9/11 should be up there, and the propaganda victory of making false-flag terrorism unthinkable no matter what the evidence is. Such a brainwashed population is useless.

    When Bush committed Treason to protect Saudi sponsors of hijackers the entire system should have screeched to a halt and arrested the executive branch. That is if America had a shred of integrity.

    Today they play both sides of the terror game, and it is just a game to them. Tens of thousands of corpses in Libya, hundreds of thousands in Syria, it continues in a bi-partisan rampage. And no one on television will say a word about this criminal betrayal and support for international terrorism and the crime of aggressive warfare.

    Orwell called it.

    Why ISIS Exists: The Double Game

    http://intpolicydigest.org/2015/11/29/why-isis-exists-the-double-game/

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    "Today they play both sides of the terror game, and it is just a game to them." - Today? Saudi role for 9/11 was just to provide patsies or overlook while they were being recruited. Perhaps they toss some money as well. $100 is nothing for them.
  178. @Kiza
    I do not dispute the points in your comment, it is not only the fathers and the mothers of the Ziocons who dislike Russia, although many immigrés in Israel from Russia actually still like Russia very much.

    But I note your exchange with a Canadian newspaper columnist who argued that Canada should be at war with Syria. You passed over this as if it were a normal thing!!!!! This is wonderful example why people hate Jews so much, in every country of the world. If I were Canadian and some moron argued that my country should bomb another country because his motherland does not like this other country, I would tell him to go and f*** himself. The fact that Jews can get away with such BS and actually get some countries bombed by third parties just creates a lot of accumulated anger which will come to boil one day and pogroms could happen again. Unfortunately, all pogroms tend to kill more innocents than the guilty. Most Jews are not extremists like your "Canadian newspaper columnist", there are many, many good guys.

    As to Jewish memory you write about, many normal nations do not have the benefit of revenge and just learn to share this planet with their enemies, they move on. You suggest that the Jews do not have to, they can hold a grudge or be victims forever. Unfortunately, this is also not always true, well illustrated by the pact between the US Ziocons and the Ukrainian Nazis, both sides opportunistically using each other for the time being. You are aware, for example, that Kolomoyskyi was paying the Ukrainian Nazis, whose fathers were killing Ukrainian Jews during WW2, to fight Putin Jew. Therefore, interests dominate the Jewish elites, not grudges.

    Brilliant as always.

    Read More
  179. Cyrano says:
    @5371
    Everyone who read your pathetic attempt at obfuscation is the stupider for it, but few of them, even so, will be close to you or your bird-brained friend "Regnum Nostrum" in stupidity.

    Don’t get angry with me. I told you that your public education system has not prepared you for discussion on this intellectual level. It’s not that they didn’t teach you some useful stuff in your schools such as: “You are all special” and “You are all equal”, and I suspect that in the last few years they might have added to their curriculum another pearl of wisdom: “You are all exceptional”. That still has done nothing to enable you to intelligently discuss things.

    Read More
    • Replies: @5371
    You haven't figured out how to admit that it was Britain and France that declared war on Germany while still keeping a shred of your dignity, I see.
  180. Cyrano says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Love the convenient and emotional labeling of the UK and France as "the Western Powers." So Germany was not a Western civilization and culture?

    The label "Western Powers" grouping US together with UK and France, seems merely to ASSUME that the US should have intervened, and intervened on the side it did -- with the effect of devastating Germany and helping the Soviet Communists subjugate the people of central and eastern Europe quite as brutally as the Nazis did or would have.

    The US should have stayed out of WW2. Nobody has even come close to demonstrating any reasonable chance that Germany would have been able to effectively occupy and pacify a vast Russian territory and somehow still attack the USA.

    Germany declared war on US on November 11, 1941. How do you suggest that US should have dealt with that? Ignore the declaration of war?

    Read More
  181. utu says:
    @jg
    The Treason of 9/11 should be up there, and the propaganda victory of making false-flag terrorism unthinkable no matter what the evidence is. Such a brainwashed population is useless.

    When Bush committed Treason to protect Saudi sponsors of hijackers the entire system should have screeched to a halt and arrested the executive branch. That is if America had a shred of integrity.

    Today they play both sides of the terror game, and it is just a game to them. Tens of thousands of corpses in Libya, hundreds of thousands in Syria, it continues in a bi-partisan rampage. And no one on television will say a word about this criminal betrayal and support for international terrorism and the crime of aggressive warfare.

    Orwell called it.

    Why ISIS Exists: The Double Game
    http://intpolicydigest.org/2015/11/29/why-isis-exists-the-double-game/

    “Today they play both sides of the terror game, and it is just a game to them.” – Today? Saudi role for 9/11 was just to provide patsies or overlook while they were being recruited. Perhaps they toss some money as well. $100 is nothing for them.

    Read More
  182. @5371
    [Which explains why Woodrow Wilson sent US forces to Siberia in 1918 – 1920 in an attempt to eradicate Bolshevism.]

    Actually it was much more an attempt to warn the Japanese off from exploiting the situation.

    StoC:

    Wilson sent US forces to Siberia in 1918 – 1920 in an attempt to eradicate Bolshevism.

    5371:

    “Actually it was much more an attempt to warn the Japanese off from exploiting the situation.”

    According to Carl J. Richard, professor of history at the University of Louisiana,

    Wilson’s original intent was to enable Czechs and anti-Bolshevik Russians to rebuild the Eastern Front against the Central Powers. But Wilson continued the intervention for a year and a half after the armistice in order to overthrow the Bolsheviks and to prevent the Japanese from absorbing eastern Siberia. . . .
    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.

    http://www.amazon.com/When-United-States-Invaded-Russia/dp/1442219890?ie=UTF8&keywords=when%20the%20united%20states%20invaded%20russia%20woodrow%20wilson%27s%20siberian%20disaster&qid=1464301375&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.

    Wow! The Jews get the US to attack the Bolshevik Jews in order to strengthen them. Wow! It's true, them Jews are just too fucking smart for us with all their double bank shots, we ain't got a chance.
  183. bunga says:
    @Kiza
    I do not dispute the points in your comment, it is not only the fathers and the mothers of the Ziocons who dislike Russia, although many immigrés in Israel from Russia actually still like Russia very much.

    But I note your exchange with a Canadian newspaper columnist who argued that Canada should be at war with Syria. You passed over this as if it were a normal thing!!!!! This is wonderful example why people hate Jews so much, in every country of the world. If I were Canadian and some moron argued that my country should bomb another country because his motherland does not like this other country, I would tell him to go and f*** himself. The fact that Jews can get away with such BS and actually get some countries bombed by third parties just creates a lot of accumulated anger which will come to boil one day and pogroms could happen again. Unfortunately, all pogroms tend to kill more innocents than the guilty. Most Jews are not extremists like your "Canadian newspaper columnist", there are many, many good guys.

    As to Jewish memory you write about, many normal nations do not have the benefit of revenge and just learn to share this planet with their enemies, they move on. You suggest that the Jews do not have to, they can hold a grudge or be victims forever. Unfortunately, this is also not always true, well illustrated by the pact between the US Ziocons and the Ukrainian Nazis, both sides opportunistically using each other for the time being. You are aware, for example, that Kolomoyskyi was paying the Ukrainian Nazis, whose fathers were killing Ukrainian Jews during WW2, to fight Putin Jew. Therefore, interests dominate the Jewish elites, not grudges.

    This is interesting on many levels and will [possibly explain a lot of animosities between West and Islam ( Arab )

    It will not be nowhere like this that someone from the Jewish community will ask/demand Canadian leaders or media to mount an assault or mount repeated assault on a country not at war with Canad or US or UK.. The persons or groups of them ( Sheldon Saban PNAC crowds OSP of Sharon gang in Bush administration ) from the community would provide the reason – casus belli and could be anything from violation of western values to conspiring to invade the western land or to engage in immediate terrorism . The process can take years if not decade Exactly that is what happened in case of Iraq and was slowly moving to that direction in case of Iran.

    This way Israel will export its violence abroad, engulf and ensnare other nations who have no beef or skin in the disputes .
    Israel will label it ex post facto. Some paid or deluded or ill -informed man will call it clash of civilization s.

    Read More
  184. Avery says:
    @Kiza
    How about: Russia has too powerful an enemy already in the US in its satellites and vassals (big block). It does not need to make things worse by turning all of the world's Jewery against it as well. I do not have a problem with what Putin is doing, he is minding Russia's own business, not trying to right the world's wrongs. It is the US which keeps destroying the world by its Military Industrial Propaganda (MSM) Complex inventing the rights and the wrongs (always according to own interests) and devastating the world. Putin does not take the position that he always knows who/what is right or wrong, as I wrote, he minds the Russian own business.

    This is why he is such a respected leader outside of the brainwashed section of the world.

    {How about: Russia has too powerful an enemy already in the US in its satellites and vassals (big block). It does not need to make things worse by turning all of the world’s Jewery against it as well. I do not have a problem with what Putin is doing, he is minding Russia’s own business, not trying to right the world’s wrongs.}

    Well said Kiza.

    People forget what RF is facing.
    Despite her size, nukes, etc, RF is facing formidable odds.
    US, plus powerhouse economies of EU under orders of US Neocons, Canada, Australia, …. are all lined up against RF.

    Compare the population and economy of RF to the list above, and should be clear that Russia needs to mind it own business, and not add more enemies and adversaries if she can help it.
    It is an undeniable fact that Jewish diaspora has tremendous influence on the governments of US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Australia,….

    So why should Russia and Putin add more problems to what they already have to deal with.
    For all practical purposes Russia is alone against a formidable economic and military block with enormous built-in advantages.
    People forget that barely 20 years ago or so, Russia almost imploded under Yeltsin.
    Russia needs time to rebuild its economy and ween it off of too much dependence on the West.
    Same with its markets, its financial transactions infrastructure (off SWIFT), etc.

    It takes time.

    Russian leadership is wisely choosing where and when to fight, and where and when not to get goaded into a fight they can’t win. They have limited resources and have to use them judiciously. What they have accomplished and how far they have come since the disasters years of Yeltsin is proof enough that they know what they are doing.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    Agreed. But I was also trying to make another very important point. Who in this world really knows who/what is a right and who/what is a wrong? In the past times of better humanity, people used to say "only God knows", "the road to Hell is paved with good or 'good' intentions" and so on. Nowadays, every sh*thead coming out some heavily marketed US university knows exactly what is right and what is wrong. Every US officer and sh*tkicker, Admiral Kirby, and almost every US citizen knows who is the bad guy and who is the good guy, where is the right and where is the wrong. They will keep bombing for a better world. Thus, it appears that until some nuclear or dirty bomb drops on one US city, the majority of the US citizens will be ready to pass judgement inside God's domain.

    On another matter, some people highlight how Putin let down the Eastern Ukrainian Russians whilst he intervened in Syria where Russian gas and oil interests where at stake. Notwithstanding that Eastern Ukraine was a trap sprung for Russia into which Putin did not step, I remind such people of what is officially recommended on a passenger plane when there is cabin depressurization: put a mask onto your self first and then put a mask onto your child. Once Russia is strong enough, then it will help all of its relatives and friends to defend against enemy attacks. Overstretching now would lead to its own demise, how could it help its cousins then? Russia has to chose its core interests and battles carefully. This is exactly what Putin is doing.
  185. Kiza says:
    @Avery
    {How about: Russia has too powerful an enemy already in the US in its satellites and vassals (big block). It does not need to make things worse by turning all of the world’s Jewery against it as well. I do not have a problem with what Putin is doing, he is minding Russia’s own business, not trying to right the world’s wrongs.}

    Well said Kiza.

    People forget what RF is facing.
    Despite her size, nukes, etc, RF is facing formidable odds.
    US, plus powerhouse economies of EU under orders of US Neocons, Canada, Australia, .... are all lined up against RF.

    Compare the population and economy of RF to the list above, and should be clear that Russia needs to mind it own business, and not add more enemies and adversaries if she can help it.
    It is an undeniable fact that Jewish diaspora has tremendous influence on the governments of US, Canada, UK, France, Germany, Australia,....

    So why should Russia and Putin add more problems to what they already have to deal with.
    For all practical purposes Russia is alone against a formidable economic and military block with enormous built-in advantages.
    People forget that barely 20 years ago or so, Russia almost imploded under Yeltsin.
    Russia needs time to rebuild its economy and ween it off of too much dependence on the West.
    Same with its markets, its financial transactions infrastructure (off SWIFT), etc.

    It takes time.

    Russian leadership is wisely choosing where and when to fight, and where and when not to get goaded into a fight they can't win. They have limited resources and have to use them judiciously. What they have accomplished and how far they have come since the disasters years of Yeltsin is proof enough that they know what they are doing.

    Agreed. But I was also trying to make another very important point. Who in this world really knows who/what is a right and who/what is a wrong? In the past times of better humanity, people used to say “only God knows”, “the road to Hell is paved with good or ‘good’ intentions” and so on. Nowadays, every sh*thead coming out some heavily marketed US university knows exactly what is right and what is wrong. Every US officer and sh*tkicker, Admiral Kirby, and almost every US citizen knows who is the bad guy and who is the good guy, where is the right and where is the wrong. They will keep bombing for a better world. Thus, it appears that until some nuclear or dirty bomb drops on one US city, the majority of the US citizens will be ready to pass judgement inside God’s domain.

    On another matter, some people highlight how Putin let down the Eastern Ukrainian Russians whilst he intervened in Syria where Russian gas and oil interests where at stake. Notwithstanding that Eastern Ukraine was a trap sprung for Russia into which Putin did not step, I remind such people of what is officially recommended on a passenger plane when there is cabin depressurization: put a mask onto your self first and then put a mask onto your child. Once Russia is strong enough, then it will help all of its relatives and friends to defend against enemy attacks. Overstretching now would lead to its own demise, how could it help its cousins then? Russia has to chose its core interests and battles carefully. This is exactly what Putin is doing.

    Read More
  186. @Cyrano
    The initiator of all hostilities was Germany, not the western allies. Poland had military treaties with both France and Britain which stipulated military assistance to Poland if Poland was attacked. Thus when Germany attacked Poland, it attacked all three of them – because Germany was aware of their military alliance. Do you understand the logic here my friend?

    Same as is the case with NATO today. If someone attacked any NATO country, implicitly that’s a declaration of war against - say US, because of the famed article 5 or as I like to call it the 3 musketeers article – one for all, all for one.

    Although Hitler hoped that Britain and France will chicken out of their military obligations to Poland (and he was almost right) - Britain and France did declare war on Germany - but halfheartedly and then did almost nothing for 8 months hoping for a miracle. The miracle came in the form of Germany actually attacking them after what’s known as the “Phoney War”.

    In reality, the declaration of war by France and Britain against Germany was just a formality, because Germany was the initiator all the way.

    Do you understand that 2 comes AFTER 1 and 1939 comes AFTER 1918 and even AFTER 1938, my friend?

    Q: What was at the heart of the conflict between Poland and Germany?

    A:

    After WW1, the Versailles Treaty made former Prussian city of Danzig a quasi-independent city-state. It was governed by a local parliament while was overseen by a League of Nations appointed high commissioner. Being surrounded by Polish territory, the port facilities were also open for Polish use, but the Polish did not take comfort in mere usage. The Polish wanted Danzig within its boundaries, but the predominantly ethnic German city wished for the status quo. When the Nazi Party rose to power in Germany, many recruitment efforts by the party were active in Danzig. By 1933, 38% of the Danzig parliament was consisted of Nazi Party members, and a similarly significant percentage of the population expressed their wish to become a part of Germany.

    Q: What did Versailles have to say about the rights of peoples of different ethnicities in the states whose boundaries Versailles negotiators reconfigured?

    A: Ironically, according to Edwin Black in The Transfer Agreement, in response to the demands of Jewish zionists who were heavily represented in Wilson’s delegation. In Black’s words:

    “American Jewish Congress leaders returned from Versailles in triumph. They had helped create a Jewish homeland, as well as secure international guarantees for minorities in Europe.

    Black has more to say about Jewish activism in Poland, vis a vis Danzig; regarding respect for ethnic German rights in Poland; and with respect to Polish-Jewish provocations of Germany–

    [MORE]

    “As W. W. Cohen [ ] was exhorting his fellow Americans to fight back economically, the Jews of Vilna, Poland, were proposing the identical tactic. Poland contained Europe’s most concentrated Jewish population, nearly 3.5 million, mainly residing in closely knit urban communities. They were economically and politically cohesive, often militant. Bordering Hitler’s Germany, Polish Jewry could organize an anti-Nazi boycott that would not only be financially irritating to the Reich, but highly visible in central Europe. The Jews of Vilna held a boycott rally on March 20, 1933. To recruit inter political . . . support, they incorporated their boycott movement into the larger national furor over the Polish Corridor. . . .German access via a corridor traversing Poland and controlled by Poland was part of the Versailles Treaty. Poland, unwilling to relinquish its Versailles territorial rights, reacted defensively, and rumors of a preemptive Polish invasion of Germany were rampant.
    By identifying their anti-Nazi boycott as national rather than sectarian retaliation, the Vilna Jews sought to construct the model for other worried Europeans. Vilna’s March 20 mass anti-Hitler rally urged all Polish patriots and Jews throughout the world to battle for Polish territorial defense by not buying or selling German goods. . . .”

    Black repeats the fact that Polish military forces were champing at the bit and positioning themselves to march on Germany as early as the first-quarter of 1933. Germany was not in a position to defend itself against such an attack, as the Poles, as well as the Jewish provocateurs, well knew.

    As Maj. Gen. Gerd Schultz-Rhonhof states in “1939: The War That had Many Fathers,” in 1933 the ratio of French military superiority to Germany was 12-to-1, and counting the forces of France and its allies the ratio rises to 97-to-1.

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

    Q: What motivated W. W. Cohen to react so strongly to the fact that the NSDAP had taken power in Germany?

    A: Edwin Black cites two specific situations: First, the publication in the German-Jewish press and in American-Jewish newspapers of “atrocity propaganda” similar to that charged against the Germans in WWI, propaganda that was refuted and rejected by Jews resident in Germany, and belied by the opening statement of Breitman & Lichtman in “FDR and the Jews,” that NSDAP actually quelled physical violence against Jews in Germany. In other words, Jewish persons lied in a gambit to provoke a war, similar to what is taking place today wrt to Russia. This is why more and more people are demanding Liberty from the Lobby — the Israel/zionist lobby that has distorted US foreign policy for nigh on a century.

    Second, Black reports that on

    March 19, 1933 . . .the swastika was unfurled over German consulates in Jerusalem and Jaffa. Germany maintained the two consulates in Palestine as part of its normal diplomatic relations with Great Britain. Angry Tel Aviv Jews prepared to storm the consulates and burn the new German flag.”

    Think about that for add minute: Jews who occupied space in Palestine under the umbrella of the British mandate were so angered that a German government with legitimate consulates in the British mandate should raise its own flag over its own territory that it was prepared to burn it, and did succeed in bringing economic pressure to bear on Germany in a bid to so weaken that economy that the government — and its flag — would fall. (Ultimately, Jewish agents were significant participants in burning not the German consulates in Palestine but 75% of Germany and at least 600,000 German civilians.)

    But back to our chain of logic –

    It’s March, 1933, and Jews in USA and in Poland are inciting not only their fellow Jews but also other Poles to hate Germans in their midst as well as at their border, hatred that included credible threats of Polish military action against Germany.

    Jews “throughout the world” including, as noted, in Poland, pursued an economic boycott against Germany from that time, in mid-March 1933, until just after USA declared war on Japan in Dec. 1941.

    As Black stated in the quote, above, Polish Jews worked to conflate Jewish anti-German animus with the Danzig question in order to draw non-Jews and non-Poles into the frenzy.

    Nevertheless, diplomats in Germany’s NSDAP government pursued a negotiated settlement of the Danzig conflict:

    From the notes of Polish Ambassador Lipski of Conversation with Joachim von Ribbentrop:

    In a conversation on 24 October 1938 over luncheon . . . Herr von Ribbentrop put forward a proposal for a basic settlement of issues between Poland and Germany which, as he expressed himself, would remove the causes of future strife.

    This included the reunion of Danzig with the Reich, while Poland would be assured of retaining railway and economic facilities there.
    Poland would agree to the building of an extraterritorial superhighway and railway line across Pomerania. In exchange, von Ribbentrop mentioned the possibility of an extension of the Polish-German agreement by twenty-five years and a guarantee of Polish-German frontiers. As a possible sphere for future cooperation between the two countries, the German Foreign Minister specified joint action in colonial matters, the emigration of Jews from Poland, and a joint policy toward Russia on the basis of the Anti-Comintern Pact.
    Herr von Ribbentrop asked the Ambassador to communicate his suggestions to Minister Beck; he would like to discuss these matters with him, with the Ambassador’s participation….

    Poland reject the offer:

    On 19 November [1938], Ambassador Lipski requested an interview with Ribbentrop. In diplomatic, but firm language, Warsaw rejected all the German proposals and offered no grounds for future discussions. Pointedly, Poland thereafter initiated a series of conversations with the Soviet Union, and published a joint communique about them on 26 November.. Ribbentrop’s reaction was startlingly moderate.

    “On 5 January 1939, Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck had a personal meeting with Hitler and found him on his best behavior. Obviously, nothing had as yet been settled concerning German policy toward Poland.
    . . . the Führer wished to repeat once more that since 1934 there had been no change in the German attitude toward Poland. In order to arrive at a definitive settlement of the questions still pending between the two countries, one ought not to confine oneself to the rather negative agreement of 1934, but should try to bring the individual problems to a definitive settlement by treaty. . . .
    With regard to the Corridor, . . . the Führer pointed out that it was of course completely absurd to want to deprive Poland of her outlet to the sea. If Poland were bottled up in this manner, she might, in view of the tension that would thereby arise, be likened to a loaded revolver whose trigger might be pulled at any minute. Thus, the necessity for Poland to have access to the sea definitely had to be recognized. In the same way, however, having a connection with East Prussia was a necessity for Germany; here too, by using entirely new methods of solution one could perhaps do justice to the interests of both.

    If it should be possible on this rational basis to bring about a definitive settlement of the individual problems, which would of course have to do justice to both sides, the time would have come to supplement in a positive sense, in the manner of the agreements with France, the rather negative declaration of 1934 by a German guarantee of Poland’s frontiers clearly laid down in a treaty. Poland would then obtain the great advantage of having her frontier with Germany, including the Corridor, secured by treaty. “

    25 – 26 March 1939 more meetings were held: Polish ambassador Lipski met with Ribbentropp; Lipski came away with the message that “The Führer does not wish to solve the Danzig question by force, however. He does not wish to drive Poland into the arms of Britain by this means.”

    “when the British issued their guarantee to Poland, on 3 April 1939, he [Hitler] reacted in typical fashion. He issued a new directive for war; obviously, he wanted to be ready for all contingencies. “

    Then,

    11 April 1939 Adolf Hitler Directive for War Against Poland

    The present attitude of Poland requires … the initiation of military preparations, to remove if necessary any threat from this direction for ever.

    1. German relations with Poland continue to be based on the principles of avoiding any disturbances.
    Should Poland, however, change her policy towards Germany … and adopt a threatening attitude, a final settlement might become necessary in spite of the Treaty in force with Poland.

    The aim then would be to destroy Polish military strength and create in the East a situation which satisfies the requirements of national defense. The Free State of Danzig will be proclaimed a part of the Reich territory at the outbreak of hostilities, at the latest.

    The political leaders consider it their task in this case to isolate Poland if possible, that is to say, to limit the war to Poland only. The development of increasing internal crises in France and resulting British restraint might produce such a situation in the not too distant future. Intervention by Russia . . . cannot be expected to be of any use to Poland, because this would mean Poland’s destruction by Bolshevism.

    The French, [who had one of the strongest armies in the west], in fact, promised the Poles in mid-May 1939 that in the event of German aggression against Poland, France would launch an offensive against the Germans “no later than fifteen days after mobilization”. This promise was sealed in a solemn treaty signed between Poland and France. . . .

    As the notes from the Polish diplomats indicate, by an agreement in 1934; on several occasions in 1938; and in January, March and April 1939; and as Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof further reveals, up until the very last moment in August, 1939, German negotiators and Hitler himself carried on extensive negotiations, and made generous overtures to the Polish in an effort to resolve the Danzig conflict without violence.

    Jewish zionist propagandists and warmongers in USA and Poland began from shortly after the NSDAP took power in 1933 to inflame passions and incite hatred of Germans, in service of Jewish purposes that were deliberately conflated with Polish grievances, which derailed the possibility of nonviolent resolution.

    Working conclusion: Cyrano’s logic does not square with the facts. It’s bunk.

    Read More
    • Agree: Catiline
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Nice try SolontoCroesus, but you’ll never convince me with your bull. You know why? - Because our starting positions are vastly different. You see, I don’t hate Jews, I think they are quite OK. Some of the greatest minds of humanity were Jewish: Einstein, Marx, Trotsky. The city I am from (somewhere in Eastern Europe) was 1/3 Jewish prior to WW2. Now there are none remaining thanks to Hitler, but the population has no bad memories about the Jews. They do have some bad memories about the occupying forces though.

    But enough of that, instead I’ll tell you one of my favorite anecdotes about Stalin. Apparently when he heard about the mass rapes that the Red Army was conducting in Germany, Stalin said: – “Too bad that so many of our sons and daughters will have to be born in a foreign land.” God I love that man. Everybody has heroes – yours is Hitler, mine is Stalin. Anybody trying to portray the Nazis as innocent angels must have some serious issues. I hate to spoil it for you, but my hero won. Nice talking to you.
    , @KA
    Traditional Jewish Attitudes to Poles

    by Mark Paul.

    can be found by googling in pdf

    The short essay shows a picture that could be applicable to E Europe and Russia
  187. Art says:

    Why do we pussyfoot around the Jew issue?

    Our current troubles with Russia are 100% Jew related – PERIOD.

    NATO does not belong on Russia’s borders – it is a matter of respect. That was our deal with them in 1990.

    When are we going to take our country back from the Jews?

    Only when we call a Jew – Jew – will things correct themselves.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Kiza
    This post is as extremist as the "Canadian newspaper columnist". Our current troubles with Russia are NOT 100% Jew related. They are AngloZionist related and people like you who cannot tell the difference or do not want to add to the "trouble with Russia".
  188. @Corvinus
    "If you have a more plausible analysis and explanation for what is going on in the west, let’s have it, pleeeeese."

    Would you even believe it if I offered my own two cents worth? Better yet, would you be WILLING to believe it?

    You may choose to keep your great wisdom a secret, of course.

    Read More
  189. Cyrano says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Do you understand that 2 comes AFTER 1 and 1939 comes AFTER 1918 and even AFTER 1938, my friend?

    Q: What was at the heart of the conflict between Poland and Germany?

    A:

    After WW1, the Versailles Treaty made former Prussian city of Danzig a quasi-independent city-state. It was governed by a local parliament while was overseen by a League of Nations appointed high commissioner. Being surrounded by Polish territory, the port facilities were also open for Polish use, but the Polish did not take comfort in mere usage. The Polish wanted Danzig within its boundaries, but the predominantly ethnic German city wished for the status quo. When the Nazi Party rose to power in Germany, many recruitment efforts by the party were active in Danzig. By 1933, 38% of the Danzig parliament was consisted of Nazi Party members, and a similarly significant percentage of the population expressed their wish to become a part of Germany.
     
    Q: What did Versailles have to say about the rights of peoples of different ethnicities in the states whose boundaries Versailles negotiators reconfigured?

    A: Ironically, according to Edwin Black in The Transfer Agreement, in response to the demands of Jewish zionists who were heavily represented in Wilson's delegation. In Black's words:

    "American Jewish Congress leaders returned from Versailles in triumph. They had helped create a Jewish homeland, as well as secure international guarantees for minorities in Europe."
     
    Black has more to say about Jewish activism in Poland, vis a vis Danzig; regarding respect for ethnic German rights in Poland; and with respect to Polish-Jewish provocations of Germany--

    "As W. W. Cohen [ ] was exhorting his fellow Americans to fight back economically, the Jews of Vilna, Poland, were proposing the identical tactic. Poland contained Europe's most concentrated Jewish population, nearly 3.5 million, mainly residing in closely knit urban communities. They were economically and politically cohesive, often militant. Bordering Hitler's Germany, Polish Jewry could organize an anti-Nazi boycott that would not only be financially irritating to the Reich, but highly visible in central Europe. The Jews of Vilna held a boycott rally on March 20, 1933. To recruit inter political . . . support, they incorporated their boycott movement into the larger national furor over the Polish Corridor. . . .German access via a corridor traversing Poland and controlled by Poland was part of the Versailles Treaty. Poland, unwilling to relinquish its Versailles territorial rights, reacted defensively, and rumors of a preemptive Polish invasion of Germany were rampant.
    By identifying their anti-Nazi boycott as national rather than sectarian retaliation, the Vilna Jews sought to construct the model for other worried Europeans. Vilna's March 20 mass anti-Hitler rally urged all Polish patriots and Jews throughout the world to battle for Polish territorial defense by not buying or selling German goods. . . ."
     
    Black repeats the fact that Polish military forces were champing at the bit and positioning themselves to march on Germany as early as the first-quarter of 1933. Germany was not in a position to defend itself against such an attack, as the Poles, as well as the Jewish provocateurs, well knew.

    As Maj. Gen. Gerd Schultz-Rhonhof states in "1939: The War That had Many Fathers," in 1933 the ratio of French military superiority to Germany was 12-to-1, and counting the forces of France and its allies the ratio rises to 97-to-1.

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

    Q: What motivated W. W. Cohen to react so strongly to the fact that the NSDAP had taken power in Germany?

    A: Edwin Black cites two specific situations: First, the publication in the German-Jewish press and in American-Jewish newspapers of "atrocity propaganda" similar to that charged against the Germans in WWI, propaganda that was refuted and rejected by Jews resident in Germany, and belied by the opening statement of Breitman & Lichtman in "FDR and the Jews," that NSDAP actually quelled physical violence against Jews in Germany. In other words, Jewish persons lied in a gambit to provoke a war, similar to what is taking place today wrt to Russia. This is why more and more people are demanding Liberty from the Lobby -- the Israel/zionist lobby that has distorted US foreign policy for nigh on a century.

    Second, Black reports that on

    "March 19, 1933 . . .the swastika was unfurled over German consulates in Jerusalem and Jaffa. Germany maintained the two consulates in Palestine as part of its normal diplomatic relations with Great Britain. Angry Tel Aviv Jews prepared to storm the consulates and burn the new German flag."
     
    Think about that for add minute: Jews who occupied space in Palestine under the umbrella of the British mandate were so angered that a German government with legitimate consulates in the British mandate should raise its own flag over its own territory that it was prepared to burn it, and did succeed in bringing economic pressure to bear on Germany in a bid to so weaken that economy that the government -- and its flag -- would fall. (Ultimately, Jewish agents were significant participants in burning not the German consulates in Palestine but 75% of Germany and at least 600,000 German civilians.)

    But back to our chain of logic --

    It's March, 1933, and Jews in USA and in Poland are inciting not only their fellow Jews but also other Poles to hate Germans in their midst as well as at their border, hatred that included credible threats of Polish military action against Germany.

    Jews "throughout the world" including, as noted, in Poland, pursued an economic boycott against Germany from that time, in mid-March 1933, until just after USA declared war on Japan in Dec. 1941.

    As Black stated in the quote, above, Polish Jews worked to conflate Jewish anti-German animus with the Danzig question in order to draw non-Jews and non-Poles into the frenzy.

    Nevertheless, diplomats in Germany's NSDAP government pursued a negotiated settlement of the Danzig conflict:

    From the notes of Polish Ambassador Lipski of Conversation with Joachim von Ribbentrop:

    In a conversation on 24 October 1938 over luncheon . . . Herr von Ribbentrop put forward a proposal for a basic settlement of issues between Poland and Germany which, as he expressed himself, would remove the causes of future strife.

    This included the reunion of Danzig with the Reich, while Poland would be assured of retaining railway and economic facilities there.
    Poland would agree to the building of an extraterritorial superhighway and railway line across Pomerania. In exchange, von Ribbentrop mentioned the possibility of an extension of the Polish-German agreement by twenty-five years and a guarantee of Polish-German frontiers. As a possible sphere for future cooperation between the two countries, the German Foreign Minister specified joint action in colonial matters, the emigration of Jews from Poland, and a joint policy toward Russia on the basis of the Anti-Comintern Pact.
    Herr von Ribbentrop asked the Ambassador to communicate his suggestions to Minister Beck; he would like to discuss these matters with him, with the Ambassador's participation....
     
    Poland reject the offer:

    On 19 November [1938], Ambassador Lipski requested an interview with Ribbentrop. In diplomatic, but firm language, Warsaw rejected all the German proposals and offered no grounds for future discussions. Pointedly, Poland thereafter initiated a series of conversations with the Soviet Union, and published a joint communique about them on 26 November.. Ribbentrop's reaction was startlingly moderate.
     

    "On 5 January 1939, Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck had a personal meeting with Hitler and found him on his best behavior. Obviously, nothing had as yet been settled concerning German policy toward Poland.
    . . . the Führer wished to repeat once more that since 1934 there had been no change in the German attitude toward Poland. In order to arrive at a definitive settlement of the questions still pending between the two countries, one ought not to confine oneself to the rather negative agreement of 1934, but should try to bring the individual problems to a definitive settlement by treaty. . . .
    With regard to the Corridor, . . . the Führer pointed out that it was of course completely absurd to want to deprive Poland of her outlet to the sea. If Poland were bottled up in this manner, she might, in view of the tension that would thereby arise, be likened to a loaded revolver whose trigger might be pulled at any minute. Thus, the necessity for Poland to have access to the sea definitely had to be recognized. In the same way, however, having a connection with East Prussia was a necessity for Germany; here too, by using entirely new methods of solution one could perhaps do justice to the interests of both.

    If it should be possible on this rational basis to bring about a definitive settlement of the individual problems, which would of course have to do justice to both sides, the time would have come to supplement in a positive sense, in the manner of the agreements with France, the rather negative declaration of 1934 by a German guarantee of Poland's frontiers clearly laid down in a treaty. Poland would then obtain the great advantage of having her frontier with Germany, including the Corridor, secured by treaty. "
     
    25 - 26 March 1939 more meetings were held: Polish ambassador Lipski met with Ribbentropp; Lipski came away with the message that "The Führer does not wish to solve the Danzig question by force, however. He does not wish to drive Poland into the arms of Britain by this means."

    "when the British issued their guarantee to Poland, on 3 April 1939, he [Hitler] reacted in typical fashion. He issued a new directive for war; obviously, he wanted to be ready for all contingencies. "
     
    Then,

    11 April 1939 Adolf Hitler Directive for War Against Poland

    The present attitude of Poland requires ... the initiation of military preparations, to remove if necessary any threat from this direction for ever.

    1. German relations with Poland continue to be based on the principles of avoiding any disturbances.
    Should Poland, however, change her policy towards Germany ... and adopt a threatening attitude, a final settlement might become necessary in spite of the Treaty in force with Poland.

    The aim then would be to destroy Polish military strength and create in the East a situation which satisfies the requirements of national defense. The Free State of Danzig will be proclaimed a part of the Reich territory at the outbreak of hostilities, at the latest.

    The political leaders consider it their task in this case to isolate Poland if possible, that is to say, to limit the war to Poland only. The development of increasing internal crises in France and resulting British restraint might produce such a situation in the not too distant future. Intervention by Russia . . . cannot be expected to be of any use to Poland, because this would mean Poland's destruction by Bolshevism.
     

    The French, [who had one of the strongest armies in the west], in fact, promised the Poles in mid-May 1939 that in the event of German aggression against Poland, France would launch an offensive against the Germans "no later than fifteen days after mobilization". This promise was sealed in a solemn treaty signed between Poland and France. . . .
     
    As the notes from the Polish diplomats indicate, by an agreement in 1934; on several occasions in 1938; and in January, March and April 1939; and as Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof further reveals, up until the very last moment in August, 1939, German negotiators and Hitler himself carried on extensive negotiations, and made generous overtures to the Polish in an effort to resolve the Danzig conflict without violence.

    Jewish zionist propagandists and warmongers in USA and Poland began from shortly after the NSDAP took power in 1933 to inflame passions and incite hatred of Germans, in service of Jewish purposes that were deliberately conflated with Polish grievances, which derailed the possibility of nonviolent resolution.

    Working conclusion: Cyrano's logic does not square with the facts. It's bunk.

    Nice try SolontoCroesus, but you’ll never convince me with your bull. You know why? – Because our starting positions are vastly different. You see, I don’t hate Jews, I think they are quite OK. Some of the greatest minds of humanity were Jewish: Einstein, Marx, Trotsky. The city I am from (somewhere in Eastern Europe) was 1/3 Jewish prior to WW2. Now there are none remaining thanks to Hitler, but the population has no bad memories about the Jews. They do have some bad memories about the occupying forces though.

    But enough of that, instead I’ll tell you one of my favorite anecdotes about Stalin. Apparently when he heard about the mass rapes that the Red Army was conducting in Germany, Stalin said: – “Too bad that so many of our sons and daughters will have to be born in a foreign land.” God I love that man. Everybody has heroes – yours is Hitler, mine is Stalin. Anybody trying to portray the Nazis as innocent angels must have some serious issues. I hate to spoil it for you, but my hero won. Nice talking to you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    ur response makes no sense.

    I reference the writings of Polish diplomats and their efforts to negotiate a resolution; I quote the words of a Jewish author about the actions of Jewish men to create enmity and poison diplomacy; you apparently perceive that as Jew hatred based on the absolutely illogical reasoning that three people different people who were Jewish are said to be smart.

    --
    re:


    Apparently when he heard about the mass rapes that the Red Army was conducting in Germany, Stalin said: – “Too bad that so many of our sons and daughters will have to be born in a foreign land.”
     
    Your hero Stalin seems to have conceded that Russians needed to impregnate German women to improve their intellectual gene pool.
    How many Jewish women were raped by Russians?
    --hmm. Haven't researchers discovered that more than 50% of the Ashkenazi gene pool is Italian?

    God I love that man. Everybody has heroes – yours is Hitler, mine is Stalin.
     
    You're making unwarranted assertions. Present evidence to prove your claim that "Hitler is StoC's hero."
    StoC merely states a history about Germany that is otherwise obscured from the "public education" that you fulsomely derided. If those facts demonstrate that "Hitler was a hero," that's your conclusion not mine -- tho maybe it is an explanation for why it is so essential for organizations like ADL to censor an accurate history of WWII.
    , @iffen
    Some of the greatest minds of humanity were Jewish

    Not to mention all of my favorite Biblical heroes from my childhood.
  190. helena says:
    @iffen
    pleeeeese, Helena, you are too smart to fall in line with all these Hitler fanboys.

    Neither the paranoia that jewish people feel about germanic people, nor the paranoia that germanic people feel about jewish people, is based on a false premise. The rivalry will continue until one or other group disappears, dissipates or is subsumed by the other. Ditto for all groups that have a belief in themselves. You conceive yourself as an American but you’re struggling to find other people who do too, because most people conceive themselves to be an ethnicity, an ideology, or both. But not many people nowadays conceive themselves to be solely or even primarily a nationality.

    If you had to appoint a history teacher from these comment threads, would you pick the commenter who best references his/her arguments or the commenter whose comments you agree with?

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    is (not)based on a false premise

    Yes it is false. Just because it has been around for hundreds of years and because millions have died because of it does not make it valid. It is no more (or less) valid than the Irish/Catholic/English/Protestant one, or any other tribal conflict that we can pluck from history or today’s headlines. IRA or Orangemen, which would you kill for?

    You will that false premise into being and then you act in accord with it and you build your history within that illusion. It didn’t “have” to be that way. Germans are not and do not have to be Nazis because they are German. The ones that are (were) choose it.

    You want to take us back to the blood. It’s not just the blood; it’s the brain, too. Yes, the brain is of the blood, but it is not the blood.

    You conceive yourself as an American but you’re struggling to find other people


    I struggle to create and understand what it means to be an American. One current struggle is to convince other Americans that we cannot make people whose primary identity is ethnic or religious into little Americans. Struggle is where it’s at; that’s the way it’s “sposed” to be.

    If you had to appoint a history teacher from these comment threads, would you pick the commenter who best references his/her arguments or the commenter whose comments you agree with?

    I hope that they are the same and that my pick would derive from the accuracy of the arguments. I like my reality straight up, I ain’t skeered, well, sometimes.

    Don’t try to take us back into the cave, Helena, we’ve come too far (we need more sun, you know).
    , @iffen
    Besides, your way is too easy, you don't even have to think. Just slaughter the men, rape the women and play baby fling from the top of the castle walls.
  191. 5371 says:
    @Cyrano
    Don’t get angry with me. I told you that your public education system has not prepared you for discussion on this intellectual level. It’s not that they didn’t teach you some useful stuff in your schools such as: “You are all special” and “You are all equal”, and I suspect that in the last few years they might have added to their curriculum another pearl of wisdom: “You are all exceptional”. That still has done nothing to enable you to intelligently discuss things.

    You haven’t figured out how to admit that it was Britain and France that declared war on Germany while still keeping a shred of your dignity, I see.

    Read More
  192. @Cyrano
    Nice try SolontoCroesus, but you’ll never convince me with your bull. You know why? - Because our starting positions are vastly different. You see, I don’t hate Jews, I think they are quite OK. Some of the greatest minds of humanity were Jewish: Einstein, Marx, Trotsky. The city I am from (somewhere in Eastern Europe) was 1/3 Jewish prior to WW2. Now there are none remaining thanks to Hitler, but the population has no bad memories about the Jews. They do have some bad memories about the occupying forces though.

    But enough of that, instead I’ll tell you one of my favorite anecdotes about Stalin. Apparently when he heard about the mass rapes that the Red Army was conducting in Germany, Stalin said: – “Too bad that so many of our sons and daughters will have to be born in a foreign land.” God I love that man. Everybody has heroes – yours is Hitler, mine is Stalin. Anybody trying to portray the Nazis as innocent angels must have some serious issues. I hate to spoil it for you, but my hero won. Nice talking to you.

    ur response makes no sense.

    I reference the writings of Polish diplomats and their efforts to negotiate a resolution; I quote the words of a Jewish author about the actions of Jewish men to create enmity and poison diplomacy; you apparently perceive that as Jew hatred based on the absolutely illogical reasoning that three people different people who were Jewish are said to be smart.


    re:

    Apparently when he heard about the mass rapes that the Red Army was conducting in Germany, Stalin said: – “Too bad that so many of our sons and daughters will have to be born in a foreign land.”

    Your hero Stalin seems to have conceded that Russians needed to impregnate German women to improve their intellectual gene pool.
    How many Jewish women were raped by Russians?
    –hmm. Haven’t researchers discovered that more than 50% of the Ashkenazi gene pool is Italian?

    God I love that man. Everybody has heroes – yours is Hitler, mine is Stalin.

    You’re making unwarranted assertions. Present evidence to prove your claim that “Hitler is StoC’s hero.
    StoC merely states a history about Germany that is otherwise obscured from the “public education” that you fulsomely derided. If those facts demonstrate that “Hitler was a hero,” that’s your conclusion not mine — tho maybe it is an explanation for why it is so essential for organizations like ADL to censor an accurate history of WWII.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    "Your hero Stalin seems to have conceded that Russians needed to impregnate German women to improve their intellectual gene pool."


    That’s right, he realized that impregnating German woman by Russian soldiers will improve the German gene pool since the offspring was staying in Germany.

    Payback is a beach, they shouldn’t have touched Mother Russia. Another juicy nugget for you: When the Red Army soldiers conducted searches in the apartment blocks in Berlin, the brave German husbands would push their wives to open the doors – hoping that the women will distract the Russian soldiers with some amorous thoughts and thus prevent them from developing more sinister ideas – like killing the brave Germans.

    , @Avery
    {Your hero Stalin seems to have conceded that Russians needed to impregnate German women to improve their intellectual gene pool.
    How many Jewish women were raped by Russians?}


    How many Slavic/Russian women were raped, then murdered by Nazi German invaders.
    , @RobinG
    Croesus-2-Croesus,

    From where did you make this leap of illogic--- "Your hero Stalin seems to have conceded that Russians needed to impregnate German women to improve their intellectual gene pool."?

    Nothing of the kind was said or implied. (And it's not even clear to whom your "their" refers.) Maybe you'd better move away from the keyboard, rinse the froth out of your mouth, and consider how such baseless ranting (meant to disparage Russians?) discredits you.
  193. KA [AKA "Carthage"] says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    Do you understand that 2 comes AFTER 1 and 1939 comes AFTER 1918 and even AFTER 1938, my friend?

    Q: What was at the heart of the conflict between Poland and Germany?

    A:

    After WW1, the Versailles Treaty made former Prussian city of Danzig a quasi-independent city-state. It was governed by a local parliament while was overseen by a League of Nations appointed high commissioner. Being surrounded by Polish territory, the port facilities were also open for Polish use, but the Polish did not take comfort in mere usage. The Polish wanted Danzig within its boundaries, but the predominantly ethnic German city wished for the status quo. When the Nazi Party rose to power in Germany, many recruitment efforts by the party were active in Danzig. By 1933, 38% of the Danzig parliament was consisted of Nazi Party members, and a similarly significant percentage of the population expressed their wish to become a part of Germany.
     
    Q: What did Versailles have to say about the rights of peoples of different ethnicities in the states whose boundaries Versailles negotiators reconfigured?

    A: Ironically, according to Edwin Black in The Transfer Agreement, in response to the demands of Jewish zionists who were heavily represented in Wilson's delegation. In Black's words:

    "American Jewish Congress leaders returned from Versailles in triumph. They had helped create a Jewish homeland, as well as secure international guarantees for minorities in Europe."
     
    Black has more to say about Jewish activism in Poland, vis a vis Danzig; regarding respect for ethnic German rights in Poland; and with respect to Polish-Jewish provocations of Germany--

    "As W. W. Cohen [ ] was exhorting his fellow Americans to fight back economically, the Jews of Vilna, Poland, were proposing the identical tactic. Poland contained Europe's most concentrated Jewish population, nearly 3.5 million, mainly residing in closely knit urban communities. They were economically and politically cohesive, often militant. Bordering Hitler's Germany, Polish Jewry could organize an anti-Nazi boycott that would not only be financially irritating to the Reich, but highly visible in central Europe. The Jews of Vilna held a boycott rally on March 20, 1933. To recruit inter political . . . support, they incorporated their boycott movement into the larger national furor over the Polish Corridor. . . .German access via a corridor traversing Poland and controlled by Poland was part of the Versailles Treaty. Poland, unwilling to relinquish its Versailles territorial rights, reacted defensively, and rumors of a preemptive Polish invasion of Germany were rampant.
    By identifying their anti-Nazi boycott as national rather than sectarian retaliation, the Vilna Jews sought to construct the model for other worried Europeans. Vilna's March 20 mass anti-Hitler rally urged all Polish patriots and Jews throughout the world to battle for Polish territorial defense by not buying or selling German goods. . . ."
     
    Black repeats the fact that Polish military forces were champing at the bit and positioning themselves to march on Germany as early as the first-quarter of 1933. Germany was not in a position to defend itself against such an attack, as the Poles, as well as the Jewish provocateurs, well knew.

    As Maj. Gen. Gerd Schultz-Rhonhof states in "1939: The War That had Many Fathers," in 1933 the ratio of French military superiority to Germany was 12-to-1, and counting the forces of France and its allies the ratio rises to 97-to-1.

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

    Q: What motivated W. W. Cohen to react so strongly to the fact that the NSDAP had taken power in Germany?

    A: Edwin Black cites two specific situations: First, the publication in the German-Jewish press and in American-Jewish newspapers of "atrocity propaganda" similar to that charged against the Germans in WWI, propaganda that was refuted and rejected by Jews resident in Germany, and belied by the opening statement of Breitman & Lichtman in "FDR and the Jews," that NSDAP actually quelled physical violence against Jews in Germany. In other words, Jewish persons lied in a gambit to provoke a war, similar to what is taking place today wrt to Russia. This is why more and more people are demanding Liberty from the Lobby -- the Israel/zionist lobby that has distorted US foreign policy for nigh on a century.

    Second, Black reports that on

    "March 19, 1933 . . .the swastika was unfurled over German consulates in Jerusalem and Jaffa. Germany maintained the two consulates in Palestine as part of its normal diplomatic relations with Great Britain. Angry Tel Aviv Jews prepared to storm the consulates and burn the new German flag."
     
    Think about that for add minute: Jews who occupied space in Palestine under the umbrella of the British mandate were so angered that a German government with legitimate consulates in the British mandate should raise its own flag over its own territory that it was prepared to burn it, and did succeed in bringing economic pressure to bear on Germany in a bid to so weaken that economy that the government -- and its flag -- would fall. (Ultimately, Jewish agents were significant participants in burning not the German consulates in Palestine but 75% of Germany and at least 600,000 German civilians.)

    But back to our chain of logic --

    It's March, 1933, and Jews in USA and in Poland are inciting not only their fellow Jews but also other Poles to hate Germans in their midst as well as at their border, hatred that included credible threats of Polish military action against Germany.

    Jews "throughout the world" including, as noted, in Poland, pursued an economic boycott against Germany from that time, in mid-March 1933, until just after USA declared war on Japan in Dec. 1941.

    As Black stated in the quote, above, Polish Jews worked to conflate Jewish anti-German animus with the Danzig question in order to draw non-Jews and non-Poles into the frenzy.

    Nevertheless, diplomats in Germany's NSDAP government pursued a negotiated settlement of the Danzig conflict:

    From the notes of Polish Ambassador Lipski of Conversation with Joachim von Ribbentrop:

    In a conversation on 24 October 1938 over luncheon . . . Herr von Ribbentrop put forward a proposal for a basic settlement of issues between Poland and Germany which, as he expressed himself, would remove the causes of future strife.

    This included the reunion of Danzig with the Reich, while Poland would be assured of retaining railway and economic facilities there.
    Poland would agree to the building of an extraterritorial superhighway and railway line across Pomerania. In exchange, von Ribbentrop mentioned the possibility of an extension of the Polish-German agreement by twenty-five years and a guarantee of Polish-German frontiers. As a possible sphere for future cooperation between the two countries, the German Foreign Minister specified joint action in colonial matters, the emigration of Jews from Poland, and a joint policy toward Russia on the basis of the Anti-Comintern Pact.
    Herr von Ribbentrop asked the Ambassador to communicate his suggestions to Minister Beck; he would like to discuss these matters with him, with the Ambassador's participation....
     
    Poland reject the offer:

    On 19 November [1938], Ambassador Lipski requested an interview with Ribbentrop. In diplomatic, but firm language, Warsaw rejected all the German proposals and offered no grounds for future discussions. Pointedly, Poland thereafter initiated a series of conversations with the Soviet Union, and published a joint communique about them on 26 November.. Ribbentrop's reaction was startlingly moderate.
     

    "On 5 January 1939, Polish Foreign Minister Jozef Beck had a personal meeting with Hitler and found him on his best behavior. Obviously, nothing had as yet been settled concerning German policy toward Poland.
    . . . the Führer wished to repeat once more that since 1934 there had been no change in the German attitude toward Poland. In order to arrive at a definitive settlement of the questions still pending between the two countries, one ought not to confine oneself to the rather negative agreement of 1934, but should try to bring the individual problems to a definitive settlement by treaty. . . .
    With regard to the Corridor, . . . the Führer pointed out that it was of course completely absurd to want to deprive Poland of her outlet to the sea. If Poland were bottled up in this manner, she might, in view of the tension that would thereby arise, be likened to a loaded revolver whose trigger might be pulled at any minute. Thus, the necessity for Poland to have access to the sea definitely had to be recognized. In the same way, however, having a connection with East Prussia was a necessity for Germany; here too, by using entirely new methods of solution one could perhaps do justice to the interests of both.

    If it should be possible on this rational basis to bring about a definitive settlement of the individual problems, which would of course have to do justice to both sides, the time would have come to supplement in a positive sense, in the manner of the agreements with France, the rather negative declaration of 1934 by a German guarantee of Poland's frontiers clearly laid down in a treaty. Poland would then obtain the great advantage of having her frontier with Germany, including the Corridor, secured by treaty. "
     
    25 - 26 March 1939 more meetings were held: Polish ambassador Lipski met with Ribbentropp; Lipski came away with the message that "The Führer does not wish to solve the Danzig question by force, however. He does not wish to drive Poland into the arms of Britain by this means."

    "when the British issued their guarantee to Poland, on 3 April 1939, he [Hitler] reacted in typical fashion. He issued a new directive for war; obviously, he wanted to be ready for all contingencies. "
     
    Then,

    11 April 1939 Adolf Hitler Directive for War Against Poland

    The present attitude of Poland requires ... the initiation of military preparations, to remove if necessary any threat from this direction for ever.

    1. German relations with Poland continue to be based on the principles of avoiding any disturbances.
    Should Poland, however, change her policy towards Germany ... and adopt a threatening attitude, a final settlement might become necessary in spite of the Treaty in force with Poland.

    The aim then would be to destroy Polish military strength and create in the East a situation which satisfies the requirements of national defense. The Free State of Danzig will be proclaimed a part of the Reich territory at the outbreak of hostilities, at the latest.

    The political leaders consider it their task in this case to isolate Poland if possible, that is to say, to limit the war to Poland only. The development of increasing internal crises in France and resulting British restraint might produce such a situation in the not too distant future. Intervention by Russia . . . cannot be expected to be of any use to Poland, because this would mean Poland's destruction by Bolshevism.
     

    The French, [who had one of the strongest armies in the west], in fact, promised the Poles in mid-May 1939 that in the event of German aggression against Poland, France would launch an offensive against the Germans "no later than fifteen days after mobilization". This promise was sealed in a solemn treaty signed between Poland and France. . . .
     
    As the notes from the Polish diplomats indicate, by an agreement in 1934; on several occasions in 1938; and in January, March and April 1939; and as Gerd Schultze-Rhonhof further reveals, up until the very last moment in August, 1939, German negotiators and Hitler himself carried on extensive negotiations, and made generous overtures to the Polish in an effort to resolve the Danzig conflict without violence.

    Jewish zionist propagandists and warmongers in USA and Poland began from shortly after the NSDAP took power in 1933 to inflame passions and incite hatred of Germans, in service of Jewish purposes that were deliberately conflated with Polish grievances, which derailed the possibility of nonviolent resolution.

    Working conclusion: Cyrano's logic does not square with the facts. It's bunk.

    Traditional Jewish Attitudes to Poles

    by Mark Paul.

    can be found by googling in pdf

    The short essay shows a picture that could be applicable to E Europe and Russia

    Read More
  194. […] How the World Ends: Baiting Russia is not good policy by Philip Giraldi.  [Added 5/25/2016] […]

    Read More
  195. iffen says:
    @Cyrano
    Nice try SolontoCroesus, but you’ll never convince me with your bull. You know why? - Because our starting positions are vastly different. You see, I don’t hate Jews, I think they are quite OK. Some of the greatest minds of humanity were Jewish: Einstein, Marx, Trotsky. The city I am from (somewhere in Eastern Europe) was 1/3 Jewish prior to WW2. Now there are none remaining thanks to Hitler, but the population has no bad memories about the Jews. They do have some bad memories about the occupying forces though.

    But enough of that, instead I’ll tell you one of my favorite anecdotes about Stalin. Apparently when he heard about the mass rapes that the Red Army was conducting in Germany, Stalin said: – “Too bad that so many of our sons and daughters will have to be born in a foreign land.” God I love that man. Everybody has heroes – yours is Hitler, mine is Stalin. Anybody trying to portray the Nazis as innocent angels must have some serious issues. I hate to spoil it for you, but my hero won. Nice talking to you.

    Some of the greatest minds of humanity were Jewish

    Not to mention all of my favorite Biblical heroes from my childhood.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Sure they are but they are ones often killed,ridiculed,and ousted and have been facing the fate from the ancient time to the latest epoch . Jesus was Jewish . Chas Freeman and Goldstein are Jewish. Vanunu is Jewish. "Antisemitism "and self haters exist outside the powerful victorious braggart ,intransigent and usurpious Jewish elite who matter,who define,who guide the political Judaism and who engage as part of the requirement for existence the most atrocious ugly covert activities ,misuse sophistry and manufacture polemics against other nations and against non Jewish .

    The ideas they promoted,the theories they advanced were also based on earlier exposition and discoveries by gentile scientist and philosophers and military leaders.
    In 21 st century -GOOGLE and FACEBOOK are also based on earlier similar versions or ideas introduced by Gentiles so were the whole banking system
    , @SolontoCroesus

    all of my favorite Biblical heroes
     
    Could folks from other nations weigh in on this --

    Is the Hebrew bible -- or Bible, per iffen, the "One book" that defines a nation's mythos as it seems to be in the USA?

    In my opinion, that the Hebrew Biblical heroes inform the American mythological imagination is what is wrong-headed about American culture, not what is ennobling and unifying.

    I visited Iran because I perceived in my Iranian-American friends something qualitatively different from the way I had learned to think about the world (from a Roman Catholic background -- in schools taught by Polish nuns, may I add).
    I wanted to try to understand what made my Iranian friends less judgmental, less arrogant, more likely to work toward a win-win solution rather than insist on the superiority of their own position, etc.
    As I traveled in Iran I observed and was impressed by the way all Iranians, from the mullahs in a madras in Shiraz to the taxi driver in Mashad, are informed by the poetry and epic of the Iranian people -- the poetry of Rumi and Hafez; Ferdowsi's epic, The Shahnameh. I visited monuments to these poets and scholars throughout Iran, where "they honor their poets more than their warriors." In Shiraz I saw people leave their workplaces at the end of the day and gather in the precincts of those monuments, where they would spread their blankets and rugs, and read or recite poetry to each other. The themes in these writings shape the Iranian mental set; when Iranians reach for a hero, lines from Rumi or Ferdowsi come to mind.

    America's commitment to the One [Hebrew] Book is, to my mind, misguided and destructive.

    Nobody uses Yellow Pages, the One Book of a bygone age. It's time to replace the Hebrew bible and develop an American epic, one that does not celebrate slaughtering other people's children and stealing other people's lands, homes, and culture.

    Few people may be aware of Walter Grundmann, who led a very popular movement in Weimar-, WWII-, and post-war-era Germany to separate Christianity as Germans understood it, from an Old Testament/Hebrew matrix. There is very little original source information available in English about Grundmann and his movement; Susannah Heschel seems to control that discourse, with her book, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, and relating writings that condemn Grundmann as an antisemite and a Nazi.

    To the extent I'm able to understand Grundmann, he was actually "pro-German" and "pro-Christian, " and why should he be required to be any other? Why should a Christian be required to be "pro-Jewish?" Didn't Jesus challenge his followers to be "either hot or cold; if you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth." Yet Heschel, an ardent zionist, uses a term of opprobrium to label Grundmann and the hundreds of thousands of Germans who endorsed his movement and their understanding of Jesus, as "antisemites."

    And Jews, the American people, and the West in general really, really need to get a grip on what the NSDAP -- Nazism -- was and what it was not: it is the height of irrationality to equate support for one's government and nation, even fighting for it when called upon to defend it, an evil: if it is the case that to be a such a warrior for one's nation is the equivalent of Evil, then with what words of condemnation should the American people discuss the thousands of their countrymen who invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, not to mention their supine support for those acts of aggression through their tax dollars and their acquiescence to the policy decisions that enable the wars?
    Evil Nazis fought adversaries on their own borders, in defense of ethnic Germans; the American wars of the 21st century (as well as 20th century) were and are wars of aggression in far-off lands against people who have neither the capacity nor the intention to attack the American homeland.

    Biblical heroes model such wars of aggression.

    What would have been the response to 9/11 if the American people and their leaders had been informed by the poetry of Rumi rather than the "exceptional," "chosen people," inverted victim-aggressor mythos of Hebrew scripture?

    The Guest House

    This being human is a guest house.
    Every morning a new arrival.

    A joy, a depression, a meanness,
    some momentary awareness comes
    As an unexpected visitor.

    Welcome and entertain them all!
    Even if they're a crowd of sorrows,
    who violently sweep your house
    empty of its furniture,
    still treat each guest honorably.
    He may be clearing you out
    for some new delight.

    The dark thought, the shame, the malice,
    meet them at the door laughing,
    and invite them in.

    Be grateful for whoever comes,
    because each has been sent
    as a guide from beyond.

    -Jalal al-Din Rumi
    1230 AD

    PS


    from my childhood.
     
    When I was a child I spoke as a child . . . now that I am a man, it is time to put away the things of the child . . .
  196. iffen says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    StoC:

    Wilson sent US forces to Siberia in 1918 – 1920 in an attempt to eradicate Bolshevism.
     
    5371:

    "Actually it was much more an attempt to warn the Japanese off from exploiting the situation."
     

     
    According to Carl J. Richard, professor of history at the University of Louisiana,

    Wilson’s original intent was to enable Czechs and anti-Bolshevik Russians to rebuild the Eastern Front against the Central Powers. But Wilson continued the intervention for a year and a half after the armistice in order to overthrow the Bolsheviks and to prevent the Japanese from absorbing eastern Siberia. . . .
    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.
     
    http://www.amazon.com/When-United-States-Invaded-Russia/dp/1442219890?ie=UTF8&keywords=when%20the%20united%20states%20invaded%20russia%20woodrow%20wilson%27s%20siberian%20disaster&qid=1464301375&ref_=sr_1_1&s=books&sr=1-1

    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.

    Wow! The Jews get the US to attack the Bolshevik Jews in order to strengthen them. Wow! It’s true, them Jews are just too fucking smart for us with all their double bank shots, we ain’t got a chance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KA
    Is that new? Didn't the PNAC crowd destroy the overwhelming soft powers that America used to enjoy ? Didnot"t follow- up versions of the same letter head organizations bankrupt America ,cripple its soldiers,and get it mired in ceaseless conflicts all the while promising quick victory with flowery welcome and believing in the establishment of Pax Americana?
    , @Sam Shama
    This is what I was was referring to elsewhere as the fiendish cleverness jews are endowed with.
    , @SolontoCroesus

    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.

    Wow! The Jews get the US to attack the Bolshevik Jews in order to strengthen them. Wow! It’s true, them Jews are just too fucking smart for us with all their double bank shots, we ain’t got a chance.
     

     
    Smart is a relative term: It may be the case that Jews are thought to be so fucking smart because a whole lot of other people are so fucking dumb.

    Take your situation, iffen:

    Start with the definition of irony, the word used by Richard to describe the outcome of Wilson's intervention.

    an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

    Compare that definition with your interpretation of what Richard said and what Wilson did -- you used the phrase in order to, which teh www defines, "as a means to." That is, a comprehensible plan was put in place to achieve the prescribed end.

    In other words, your rendition of what Richard wrote about Wilson's war is the opposite of what Richard wrote and what Wilson did. Wilson did not intend for Bolshevism to be strengthened; it was what Revusky might call blowback, or an unintended consequence. A fuck-up.

    I'm trying hard not to be a judgmental person, so I'm not going to characterize who was "fucking dumb" and who ended up looking "so fucking smart" by comparison, but it's hard not to notice that the bar is set pretty fucking low.

  197. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @iffen
    Some of the greatest minds of humanity were Jewish

    Not to mention all of my favorite Biblical heroes from my childhood.

    Sure they are but they are ones often killed,ridiculed,and ousted and have been facing the fate from the ancient time to the latest epoch . Jesus was Jewish . Chas Freeman and Goldstein are Jewish. Vanunu is Jewish. “Antisemitism “and self haters exist outside the powerful victorious braggart ,intransigent and usurpious Jewish elite who matter,who define,who guide the political Judaism and who engage as part of the requirement for existence the most atrocious ugly covert activities ,misuse sophistry and manufacture polemics against other nations and against non Jewish .

    The ideas they promoted,the theories they advanced were also based on earlier exposition and discoveries by gentile scientist and philosophers and military leaders.
    In 21 st century -GOOGLE and FACEBOOK are also based on earlier similar versions or ideas introduced by Gentiles so were the whole banking system

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Yeah, I know, not only that, but Bantus built Egypt, Athens and Rome.
  198. iffen says:
    @helena
    Neither the paranoia that jewish people feel about germanic people, nor the paranoia that germanic people feel about jewish people, is based on a false premise. The rivalry will continue until one or other group disappears, dissipates or is subsumed by the other. Ditto for all groups that have a belief in themselves. You conceive yourself as an American but you're struggling to find other people who do too, because most people conceive themselves to be an ethnicity, an ideology, or both. But not many people nowadays conceive themselves to be solely or even primarily a nationality.

    If you had to appoint a history teacher from these comment threads, would you pick the commenter who best references his/her arguments or the commenter whose comments you agree with?

    is (not)based on a false premise

    Yes it is false. Just because it has been around for hundreds of years and because millions have died because of it does not make it valid. It is no more (or less) valid than the Irish/Catholic/English/Protestant one, or any other tribal conflict that we can pluck from history or today’s headlines. IRA or Orangemen, which would you kill for?

    You will that false premise into being and then you act in accord with it and you build your history within that illusion. It didn’t “have” to be that way. Germans are not and do not have to be Nazis because they are German. The ones that are (were) choose it.

    You want to take us back to the blood. It’s not just the blood; it’s the brain, too. Yes, the brain is of the blood, but it is not the blood.

    You conceive yourself as an American but you’re struggling to find other people

    I struggle to create and understand what it means to be an American. One current struggle is to convince other Americans that we cannot make people whose primary identity is ethnic or religious into little Americans. Struggle is where it’s at; that’s the way it’s “sposed” to be.

    If you had to appoint a history teacher from these comment threads, would you pick the commenter who best references his/her arguments or the commenter whose comments you agree with?

    I hope that they are the same and that my pick would derive from the accuracy of the arguments. I like my reality straight up, I ain’t skeered, well, sometimes.

    Don’t try to take us back into the cave, Helena, we’ve come too far (we need more sun, you know).

    Read More
  199. iffen says:
    @Anonymous
    Sure they are but they are ones often killed,ridiculed,and ousted and have been facing the fate from the ancient time to the latest epoch . Jesus was Jewish . Chas Freeman and Goldstein are Jewish. Vanunu is Jewish. "Antisemitism "and self haters exist outside the powerful victorious braggart ,intransigent and usurpious Jewish elite who matter,who define,who guide the political Judaism and who engage as part of the requirement for existence the most atrocious ugly covert activities ,misuse sophistry and manufacture polemics against other nations and against non Jewish .

    The ideas they promoted,the theories they advanced were also based on earlier exposition and discoveries by gentile scientist and philosophers and military leaders.
    In 21 st century -GOOGLE and FACEBOOK are also based on earlier similar versions or ideas introduced by Gentiles so were the whole banking system

    Yeah, I know, not only that, but Bantus built Egypt, Athens and Rome.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Er
    Not definitely built by your heroes out of Cannan.
    And Bantus are only one still left to loan your hero any welcome
  200. KA says:
    @iffen
    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.

    Wow! The Jews get the US to attack the Bolshevik Jews in order to strengthen them. Wow! It's true, them Jews are just too fucking smart for us with all their double bank shots, we ain't got a chance.

    Is that new? Didn’t the PNAC crowd destroy the overwhelming soft powers that America used to enjoy ? Didnot”t follow- up versions of the same letter head organizations bankrupt America ,cripple its soldiers,and get it mired in ceaseless conflicts all the while promising quick victory with flowery welcome and believing in the establishment of Pax Americana?

    Read More
  201. Er says:
    @iffen
    Yeah, I know, not only that, but Bantus built Egypt, Athens and Rome.

    Not definitely built by your heroes out of Cannan.
    And Bantus are only one still left to loan your hero any welcome

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    13And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine. 14And Joseph gathered up all the money (go for it fanboys) that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh's house… 20And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; ...Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh's servants… 26And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part;
  202. iffen says:
    @helena
    Neither the paranoia that jewish people feel about germanic people, nor the paranoia that germanic people feel about jewish people, is based on a false premise. The rivalry will continue until one or other group disappears, dissipates or is subsumed by the other. Ditto for all groups that have a belief in themselves. You conceive yourself as an American but you're struggling to find other people who do too, because most people conceive themselves to be an ethnicity, an ideology, or both. But not many people nowadays conceive themselves to be solely or even primarily a nationality.

    If you had to appoint a history teacher from these comment threads, would you pick the commenter who best references his/her arguments or the commenter whose comments you agree with?

    Besides, your way is too easy, you don’t even have to think. Just slaughter the men, rape the women and play baby fling from the top of the castle walls.

    Read More
  203. @iffen
    Some of the greatest minds of humanity were Jewish

    Not to mention all of my favorite Biblical heroes from my childhood.

    all of my favorite Biblical heroes

    Could folks from other nations weigh in on this –

    Is the Hebrew bible — or Bible, per iffen, the “One book” that defines a nation’s mythos as it seems to be in the USA?

    In my opinion, that the Hebrew Biblical heroes inform the American mythological imagination is what is wrong-headed about American culture, not what is ennobling and unifying.

    I visited Iran because I perceived in my Iranian-American friends something qualitatively different from the way I had learned to think about the world (from a Roman Catholic background — in schools taught by Polish nuns, may I add).
    I wanted to try to understand what made my Iranian friends less judgmental, less arrogant, more likely to work toward a win-win solution rather than insist on the superiority of their own position, etc.
    As I traveled in Iran I observed and was impressed by the way all Iranians, from the mullahs in a madras in Shiraz to the taxi driver in Mashad, are informed by the poetry and epic of the Iranian people — the poetry of Rumi and Hafez; Ferdowsi’s epic, The Shahnameh. I visited monuments to these poets and scholars throughout Iran, where “they honor their poets more than their warriors.” In Shiraz I saw people leave their workplaces at the end of the day and gather in the precincts of those monuments, where they would spread their blankets and rugs, and read or recite poetry to each other. The themes in these writings shape the Iranian mental set; when Iranians reach for a hero, lines from Rumi or Ferdowsi come to mind.

    America’s commitment to the One [Hebrew] Book is, to my mind, misguided and destructive.

    Nobody uses Yellow Pages, the One Book of a bygone age. It’s time to replace the Hebrew bible and develop an American epic, one that does not celebrate slaughtering other people’s children and stealing other people’s lands, homes, and culture.

    Few people may be aware of Walter Grundmann, who led a very popular movement in Weimar-, WWII-, and post-war-era Germany to separate Christianity as Germans understood it, from an Old Testament/Hebrew matrix. There is very little original source information available in English about Grundmann and his movement; Susannah Heschel seems to control that discourse, with her book, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, and relating writings that condemn Grundmann as an antisemite and a Nazi.

    To the extent I’m able to understand Grundmann, he was actually “pro-German” and “pro-Christian, ” and why should he be required to be any other? Why should a Christian be required to be “pro-Jewish?” Didn’t Jesus challenge his followers to be “either hot or cold; if you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth.” Yet Heschel, an ardent zionist, uses a term of opprobrium to label Grundmann and the hundreds of thousands of Germans who endorsed his movement and their understanding of Jesus, as “antisemites.”

    And Jews, the American people, and the West in general really, really need to get a grip on what the NSDAP — Nazism — was and what it was not: it is the height of irrationality to equate support for one’s government and nation, even fighting for it when called upon to defend it, an evil: if it is the case that to be a such a warrior for one’s nation is the equivalent of Evil, then with what words of condemnation should the American people discuss the thousands of their countrymen who invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, not to mention their supine support for those acts of aggression through their tax dollars and their acquiescence to the policy decisions that enable the wars?
    Evil Nazis fought adversaries on their own borders, in defense of ethnic Germans; the American wars of the 21st century (as well as 20th century) were and are wars of aggression in far-off lands against people who have neither the capacity nor the intention to attack the American homeland.

    Biblical heroes model such wars of aggression.

    What would have been the response to 9/11 if the American people and their leaders had been informed by the poetry of Rumi rather than the “exceptional,” “chosen people,” inverted victim-aggressor mythos of Hebrew scripture?

    The Guest House

    This being human is a guest house.
    Every morning a new arrival.

    A joy, a depression, a meanness,
    some momentary awareness comes
    As an unexpected visitor.

    Welcome and entertain them all!
    Even if they’re a crowd of sorrows,
    who violently sweep your house
    empty of its furniture,
    still treat each guest honorably.
    He may be clearing you out
    for some new delight.

    The dark thought, the shame, the malice,
    meet them at the door laughing,
    and invite them in.

    Be grateful for whoever comes,
    because each has been sent
    as a guide from beyond.

    -Jalal al-Din Rumi
    1230 AD

    PS

    from my childhood.

    When I was a child I spoke as a child . . . now that I am a man, it is time to put away the things of the child . . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    to separate Christianity as Germans understood it, from an Old Testament/Hebrew matrix

    Go for it. Religions have been repositioning and retrofitting gods and sacred writings forever. The early Christians were very successful with re-branding pagan gods and festivals. You will likely have a heavier lift now since so much stuff has been written down.

    I do not condemn the Nazis for defending their nation state. I condemn them for declaring different peoples within their nation state vermin and exterminating them, and then attacking other nation states beyond what was necessary for the defense of Germany and trying to exterminate peoples in those countries.

    Train up a child in the way he should go,
    And when he is old he will not depart from it.
    , @5371
    [It’s time to replace the Hebrew bible and develop an American epic]

    Someone already tried that. It's called the Book of Mormon.
    , @annamaria
    Thank you.
    , @Stonehands
    "Biblical heroes model such wars of aggression....."

    The Canaanites courted retribution from an angry God [who used Biblical heroes to vomit them out of the land ] because they habitually practiced child sacrifice to Molech.
  204. Sam Shama says:
    @iffen
    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.

    Wow! The Jews get the US to attack the Bolshevik Jews in order to strengthen them. Wow! It's true, them Jews are just too fucking smart for us with all their double bank shots, we ain't got a chance.

    This is what I was was referring to elsewhere as the fiendish cleverness jews are endowed with.

    Read More
  205. iffen says:
    @Er
    Not definitely built by your heroes out of Cannan.
    And Bantus are only one still left to loan your hero any welcome

    13And there was no bread in all the land; for the famine was very sore, so that the land of Egypt and all the land of Canaan fainted by reason of the famine. 14And Joseph gathered up all the money (go for it fanboys) that was found in the land of Egypt, and in the land of Canaan, for the corn which they bought: and Joseph brought the money into Pharaoh’s house… 20And Joseph bought all the land of Egypt for Pharaoh; …Thou hast saved our lives: let us find grace in the sight of my lord, and we will be Pharaoh’s servants… 26And Joseph made it a law over the land of Egypt unto this day, that Pharaoh should have the fifth part;

    Read More
  206. @iffen
    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.

    Wow! The Jews get the US to attack the Bolshevik Jews in order to strengthen them. Wow! It's true, them Jews are just too fucking smart for us with all their double bank shots, we ain't got a chance.

    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.

    Wow! The Jews get the US to attack the Bolshevik Jews in order to strengthen them. Wow! It’s true, them Jews are just too fucking smart for us with all their double bank shots, we ain’t got a chance.

    Smart is a relative term: It may be the case that Jews are thought to be so fucking smart because a whole lot of other people are so fucking dumb.

    Take your situation, iffen:

    Start with the definition of irony, the word used by Richard to describe the outcome of Wilson’s intervention.

    an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

    Compare that definition with your interpretation of what Richard said and what Wilson did — you used the phrase in order to, which teh www defines, “as a means to.” That is, a comprehensible plan was put in place to achieve the prescribed end.

    In other words, your rendition of what Richard wrote about Wilson’s war is the opposite of what Richard wrote and what Wilson did. Wilson did not intend for Bolshevism to be strengthened; it was what Revusky might call blowback, or an unintended consequence. A fuck-up.

    I’m trying hard not to be a judgmental person, so I’m not going to characterize who was “fucking dumb” and who ended up looking “so fucking smart” by comparison, but it’s hard not to notice that the bar is set pretty fucking low.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Yeah, but we all know that Wilson was just a puppet doing what the puppet master wanted: strengthen the Bolsheviks.

    There are problems with your inverted this and that, your conspiracies within conspiracies, your puppet master layered after puppet master.

    Somewhere along the line you have to pick a turtle to stand on and we know which one fanboys like you have picked.
    , @iffen
    Take your situation, iffen:

    Start with the definition of irony, the word used by Richard to describe the outcome of Wilson’s intervention.


    It is obvious that you don't understand what you write about.

    Richard thought it was ironic, the puppet master didn't.
    , @Sam Shama
    I see that Iffen has already helped you understand the source and beneficiaries of the irony, so I won't go into it from a different angle.

    Perhaps another reading of Rumi might be calming for you.
  207. iffen says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.

    Wow! The Jews get the US to attack the Bolshevik Jews in order to strengthen them. Wow! It’s true, them Jews are just too fucking smart for us with all their double bank shots, we ain’t got a chance.
     

     
    Smart is a relative term: It may be the case that Jews are thought to be so fucking smart because a whole lot of other people are so fucking dumb.

    Take your situation, iffen:

    Start with the definition of irony, the word used by Richard to describe the outcome of Wilson's intervention.

    an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

    Compare that definition with your interpretation of what Richard said and what Wilson did -- you used the phrase in order to, which teh www defines, "as a means to." That is, a comprehensible plan was put in place to achieve the prescribed end.

    In other words, your rendition of what Richard wrote about Wilson's war is the opposite of what Richard wrote and what Wilson did. Wilson did not intend for Bolshevism to be strengthened; it was what Revusky might call blowback, or an unintended consequence. A fuck-up.

    I'm trying hard not to be a judgmental person, so I'm not going to characterize who was "fucking dumb" and who ended up looking "so fucking smart" by comparison, but it's hard not to notice that the bar is set pretty fucking low.

    Yeah, but we all know that Wilson was just a puppet doing what the puppet master wanted: strengthen the Bolsheviks.

    There are problems with your inverted this and that, your conspiracies within conspiracies, your puppet master layered after puppet master.

    Somewhere along the line you have to pick a turtle to stand on and we know which one fanboys like you have picked.

    Read More
  208. iffen says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    all of my favorite Biblical heroes
     
    Could folks from other nations weigh in on this --

    Is the Hebrew bible -- or Bible, per iffen, the "One book" that defines a nation's mythos as it seems to be in the USA?

    In my opinion, that the Hebrew Biblical heroes inform the American mythological imagination is what is wrong-headed about American culture, not what is ennobling and unifying.

    I visited Iran because I perceived in my Iranian-American friends something qualitatively different from the way I had learned to think about the world (from a Roman Catholic background -- in schools taught by Polish nuns, may I add).
    I wanted to try to understand what made my Iranian friends less judgmental, less arrogant, more likely to work toward a win-win solution rather than insist on the superiority of their own position, etc.
    As I traveled in Iran I observed and was impressed by the way all Iranians, from the mullahs in a madras in Shiraz to the taxi driver in Mashad, are informed by the poetry and epic of the Iranian people -- the poetry of Rumi and Hafez; Ferdowsi's epic, The Shahnameh. I visited monuments to these poets and scholars throughout Iran, where "they honor their poets more than their warriors." In Shiraz I saw people leave their workplaces at the end of the day and gather in the precincts of those monuments, where they would spread their blankets and rugs, and read or recite poetry to each other. The themes in these writings shape the Iranian mental set; when Iranians reach for a hero, lines from Rumi or Ferdowsi come to mind.

    America's commitment to the One [Hebrew] Book is, to my mind, misguided and destructive.

    Nobody uses Yellow Pages, the One Book of a bygone age. It's time to replace the Hebrew bible and develop an American epic, one that does not celebrate slaughtering other people's children and stealing other people's lands, homes, and culture.

    Few people may be aware of Walter Grundmann, who led a very popular movement in Weimar-, WWII-, and post-war-era Germany to separate Christianity as Germans understood it, from an Old Testament/Hebrew matrix. There is very little original source information available in English about Grundmann and his movement; Susannah Heschel seems to control that discourse, with her book, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, and relating writings that condemn Grundmann as an antisemite and a Nazi.

    To the extent I'm able to understand Grundmann, he was actually "pro-German" and "pro-Christian, " and why should he be required to be any other? Why should a Christian be required to be "pro-Jewish?" Didn't Jesus challenge his followers to be "either hot or cold; if you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth." Yet Heschel, an ardent zionist, uses a term of opprobrium to label Grundmann and the hundreds of thousands of Germans who endorsed his movement and their understanding of Jesus, as "antisemites."

    And Jews, the American people, and the West in general really, really need to get a grip on what the NSDAP -- Nazism -- was and what it was not: it is the height of irrationality to equate support for one's government and nation, even fighting for it when called upon to defend it, an evil: if it is the case that to be a such a warrior for one's nation is the equivalent of Evil, then with what words of condemnation should the American people discuss the thousands of their countrymen who invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, not to mention their supine support for those acts of aggression through their tax dollars and their acquiescence to the policy decisions that enable the wars?
    Evil Nazis fought adversaries on their own borders, in defense of ethnic Germans; the American wars of the 21st century (as well as 20th century) were and are wars of aggression in far-off lands against people who have neither the capacity nor the intention to attack the American homeland.

    Biblical heroes model such wars of aggression.

    What would have been the response to 9/11 if the American people and their leaders had been informed by the poetry of Rumi rather than the "exceptional," "chosen people," inverted victim-aggressor mythos of Hebrew scripture?

    The Guest House

    This being human is a guest house.
    Every morning a new arrival.

    A joy, a depression, a meanness,
    some momentary awareness comes
    As an unexpected visitor.

    Welcome and entertain them all!
    Even if they're a crowd of sorrows,
    who violently sweep your house
    empty of its furniture,
    still treat each guest honorably.
    He may be clearing you out
    for some new delight.

    The dark thought, the shame, the malice,
    meet them at the door laughing,
    and invite them in.

    Be grateful for whoever comes,
    because each has been sent
    as a guide from beyond.

    -Jalal al-Din Rumi
    1230 AD

    PS


    from my childhood.
     
    When I was a child I spoke as a child . . . now that I am a man, it is time to put away the things of the child . . .

    to separate Christianity as Germans understood it, from an Old Testament/Hebrew matrix

    Go for it. Religions have been repositioning and retrofitting gods and sacred writings forever. The early Christians were very successful with re-branding pagan gods and festivals. You will likely have a heavier lift now since so much stuff has been written down.

    I do not condemn the Nazis for defending their nation state. I condemn them for declaring different peoples within their nation state vermin and exterminating them, and then attacking other nation states beyond what was necessary for the defense of Germany and trying to exterminate peoples in those countries.

    Train up a child in the way he should go,
    And when he is old he will not depart from it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art
    iffen - Netanyahu fanboy

    Did you and Sammy go to the same hasbara school?

    You two Netanyahu fanboys sound the same.

    You lemmings are sooooo cute in your crisp brown shirts. Do you'll use the same cleaners?

    (It is so obvious, that even little old me can see it.)

    Art
  209. iffen says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.

    Wow! The Jews get the US to attack the Bolshevik Jews in order to strengthen them. Wow! It’s true, them Jews are just too fucking smart for us with all their double bank shots, we ain’t got a chance.
     

     
    Smart is a relative term: It may be the case that Jews are thought to be so fucking smart because a whole lot of other people are so fucking dumb.

    Take your situation, iffen:

    Start with the definition of irony, the word used by Richard to describe the outcome of Wilson's intervention.

    an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

    Compare that definition with your interpretation of what Richard said and what Wilson did -- you used the phrase in order to, which teh www defines, "as a means to." That is, a comprehensible plan was put in place to achieve the prescribed end.

    In other words, your rendition of what Richard wrote about Wilson's war is the opposite of what Richard wrote and what Wilson did. Wilson did not intend for Bolshevism to be strengthened; it was what Revusky might call blowback, or an unintended consequence. A fuck-up.

    I'm trying hard not to be a judgmental person, so I'm not going to characterize who was "fucking dumb" and who ended up looking "so fucking smart" by comparison, but it's hard not to notice that the bar is set pretty fucking low.

    Take your situation, iffen:

    Start with the definition of irony, the word used by Richard to describe the outcome of Wilson’s intervention.

    It is obvious that you don’t understand what you write about.

    Richard thought it was ironic, the puppet master didn’t.

    Read More
  210. Sam Shama says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    Richard argues that Wilson’s Siberian intervention ironically strengthened the Bolshevik regime it was intended to topple.

    Wow! The Jews get the US to attack the Bolshevik Jews in order to strengthen them. Wow! It’s true, them Jews are just too fucking smart for us with all their double bank shots, we ain’t got a chance.
     

     
    Smart is a relative term: It may be the case that Jews are thought to be so fucking smart because a whole lot of other people are so fucking dumb.

    Take your situation, iffen:

    Start with the definition of irony, the word used by Richard to describe the outcome of Wilson's intervention.

    an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

    Compare that definition with your interpretation of what Richard said and what Wilson did -- you used the phrase in order to, which teh www defines, "as a means to." That is, a comprehensible plan was put in place to achieve the prescribed end.

    In other words, your rendition of what Richard wrote about Wilson's war is the opposite of what Richard wrote and what Wilson did. Wilson did not intend for Bolshevism to be strengthened; it was what Revusky might call blowback, or an unintended consequence. A fuck-up.

    I'm trying hard not to be a judgmental person, so I'm not going to characterize who was "fucking dumb" and who ended up looking "so fucking smart" by comparison, but it's hard not to notice that the bar is set pretty fucking low.

    I see that Iffen has already helped you understand the source and beneficiaries of the irony, so I won’t go into it from a different angle.

    Perhaps another reading of Rumi might be calming for you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Yo, Sam, back among the keyboard warriors, are ye?

    Say, have you cobbled together the time to de-BS-ify what you regard as a wildly errant version of WWII history; to wit:

    Your version of WW2 history, Hitler’s statesmanship etc. is mostly bs. I might write about this in due course when I have more time.

    http://www.unz.com/article/the-donalds-foreign-policy/#comment-1416525
     
    Your adoring fans await with fetid bated breath.
  211. 5371 says:
    @SolontoCroesus

    all of my favorite Biblical heroes
     
    Could folks from other nations weigh in on this --

    Is the Hebrew bible -- or Bible, per iffen, the "One book" that defines a nation's mythos as it seems to be in the USA?

    In my opinion, that the Hebrew Biblical heroes inform the American mythological imagination is what is wrong-headed about American culture, not what is ennobling and unifying.

    I visited Iran because I perceived in my Iranian-American friends something qualitatively different from the way I had learned to think about the world (from a Roman Catholic background -- in schools taught by Polish nuns, may I add).
    I wanted to try to understand what made my Iranian friends less judgmental, less arrogant, more likely to work toward a win-win solution rather than insist on the superiority of their own position, etc.
    As I traveled in Iran I observed and was impressed by the way all Iranians, from the mullahs in a madras in Shiraz to the taxi driver in Mashad, are informed by the poetry and epic of the Iranian people -- the poetry of Rumi and Hafez; Ferdowsi's epic, The Shahnameh. I visited monuments to these poets and scholars throughout Iran, where "they honor their poets more than their warriors." In Shiraz I saw people leave their workplaces at the end of the day and gather in the precincts of those monuments, where they would spread their blankets and rugs, and read or recite poetry to each other. The themes in these writings shape the Iranian mental set; when Iranians reach for a hero, lines from Rumi or Ferdowsi come to mind.

    America's commitment to the One [Hebrew] Book is, to my mind, misguided and destructive.

    Nobody uses Yellow Pages, the One Book of a bygone age. It's time to replace the Hebrew bible and develop an American epic, one that does not celebrate slaughtering other people's children and stealing other people's lands, homes, and culture.

    Few people may be aware of Walter Grundmann, who led a very popular movement in Weimar-, WWII-, and post-war-era Germany to separate Christianity as Germans understood it, from an Old Testament/Hebrew matrix. There is very little original source information available in English about Grundmann and his movement; Susannah Heschel seems to control that discourse, with her book, The Aryan Jesus: Christian Theologians and the Bible in Nazi Germany, and relating writings that condemn Grundmann as an antisemite and a Nazi.

    To the extent I'm able to understand Grundmann, he was actually "pro-German" and "pro-Christian, " and why should he be required to be any other? Why should a Christian be required to be "pro-Jewish?" Didn't Jesus challenge his followers to be "either hot or cold; if you are lukewarm, I will spit you out of my mouth." Yet Heschel, an ardent zionist, uses a term of opprobrium to label Grundmann and the hundreds of thousands of Germans who endorsed his movement and their understanding of Jesus, as "antisemites."

    And Jews, the American people, and the West in general really, really need to get a grip on what the NSDAP -- Nazism -- was and what it was not: it is the height of irrationality to equate support for one's government and nation, even fighting for it when called upon to defend it, an evil: if it is the case that to be a such a warrior for one's nation is the equivalent of Evil, then with what words of condemnation should the American people discuss the thousands of their countrymen who invaded Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, not to mention their supine support for those acts of aggression through their tax dollars and their acquiescence to the policy decisions that enable the wars?
    Evil Nazis fought adversaries on their own borders, in defense of ethnic Germans; the American wars of the 21st century (as well as 20th century) were and are wars of aggression in far-off lands against people who have neither the capacity nor the intention to attack the American homeland.

    Biblical heroes model such wars of aggression.

    What would have been the response to 9/11 if the American people and their leaders had been informed by the poetry of Rumi rather than the "exceptional," "chosen people," inverted victim-aggressor mythos of Hebrew scripture?

    The Guest House

    This being human is a guest house.
    Every morning a new arrival.

    A joy, a depression, a meanness,
    some momentary awareness comes
    As an unexpected visitor.

    Welcome and entertain them all!
    Even if they're a crowd of sorrows,
    who violently sweep your house
    empty of its furniture,
    still treat each guest honorably.
    He may be clearing you out
    for some new delight.

    The dark thought, the shame, the malice,
    meet them at the door laughing,
    and invite them in.

    Be grateful for whoever comes,
    because each has been sent
    as a guide from beyond.

    -Jalal al-Din Rumi
    1230 AD

    PS


    from my childhood.
     
    When I was a child I spoke as a child . . . now that I am a man, it is time to put away the things of the child . . .

    [It’s time to replace the Hebrew bible and develop an American epic]

    Someone already tried that. It’s called the Book of Mormon.

    Read More
  212. L.K says:

    In an article written in March of 2015 titled ““Nearly all the leaders of the liberal opposition [in Russia] are either fully Jewish or have Jewish background””, prof.Kevin MacDonald wrote:

    It’s obvious that there is a strong Jewish influence in the West opposed to Russia, particularly noticeable among the Israel Lobby and the neocons —Victoria Nuland‘s family ties and her role in the Ukrainian revolution come to mind.

    There are many reasons for this, certainly including Russia’s alliance with Iran and Syria at a time when Israel and the Israel Lobby are doing all they can to promote war with both. Quite simply, Jewish hostility stems from the fact that Russia under Vladimir Putin has proved to be far more nationalistic than is good for the Jews or for Israel.

    An article in The Jerusalem Post, excerpted below, notes the very prominent role of Jews within Russia in opposing Putin — Putin refers to the opposition as a “fifth column” in Russia. But, in addition to foreign policy differences, there are also overtones of festering resentment about the role of Jewish oligarchs under Yeltsin in looting the country. Nemtsov, as noted in the article, was second in command to Yeltsin.”

    The article again raises basic issues about Jewish loyalties in the Diaspora. As in the period from 1880 to 1917[...] , there is a common stance among the organized Jewish community in the Diaspora against Russia, now tinged with Jewish loyalties to Israel at a time when war with Iran has assumed center stage for the Israel Lobby. As in the 1880-1917 period, this has resulted in Diaspora Jewish communities favoring foreign policies that are not necessarily aligned with the interests of the countries they live in but are aligned with international Jewish interests.”

    Interestingly, this is one of the several perennial themes of anti-jewish feelings(“anti-semitism”) throughout the world over thousands of years;
    Jewish disloyalty to the countries they live in.
    Like the other perennial themes( separatism and clannnishness, economic, political or economic domination, economic exploitation of gentiles), it is well grounded in reality, i.e., empirical evidence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @iffen
    Whaaattt! I didn't know about all of this. Since you have been kind enough to fill us in, I say hi 5 HH salute to you and let's fire up the ovens! Now that was easy enough, do again.
    , @anon

    Interestingly, this is one of the several perennial themes of anti-jewish feelings(“anti-semitism”) throughout the world over thousands of years;
    Jewish disloyalty to the countries they live in.
    Like the other perennial themes( separatism and clannnishness, economic, political or economic domination, economic exploitation of gentiles), it is well grounded in reality, i.e., empirical evidence.
     
    slow learners

    do they paint their short buses blue-and-white?
  213. […] Backtracking” “How the World […]

    Read More
  214. Cyrano says: