The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Karel van Wolferen Archive
Karl Rove's Prophecy
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Karl Rove. Credit: Jay Godwin/Wikimedia Commons
Karl Rove. Credit: Jay Godwin/Wikimedia Commons
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

[We're very pleased to run this provocative new piece by Karel van Wolferen, who has spent decades as one of Holland's most distinguished international journalists.]

In a famous exchange between a high official at the court of George W. Bush and journalist Ron Suskind, the official – later acknowledged to have been Karl Rove – takes the journalist to task for working in “the reality-based community.” He defined that as believing “that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality.” Rove then asserted that this was no longer the way in which the world worked:

“We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” (Ron Suskind, NYTimes Magazine, Oct. 17, 2004).

This declaration became popular as an illustration of the hubris of the Bush-Cheney government. But we could also see it as fulfilled prophecy. Fulfilled in a manner that no journalist at that time would have deemed possible. Yes, the neoconservatives brought disrepute upon themselves because of the disaster in Iraq. Sure, opposition to the reality Rove had helped create in that devastated country became a first rung on the ladder that could lead to the presidency, as it did for Barack Obama. But the neocons stayed put in the State Department and other positions closely linked to the Obama White House, where they became allies with the liberal hawks in continuing ‘spreading democracy’ by overthrowing regimes. America’s mainstream news and opinion purveyors, without demurring, accommodated the architects of reality production overseen by Dick Cheney.

This did not end when Obama became president, but in fact with seemingly ever greater eagerness they gradually made the CIA/neocon-neoliberal created reality appear unshakably substantial in the minds of most newspaper readers and among TV audiences in the Atlantic basin. This was most obvious when attention moved to an imagined existential threat posed by Russia supposedly aimed at the political and ‘Enlightenment’ achievements of the West. Neoconservatives and liberal hawks bent America’s foreign-policy entirely to their ultimate purpose of eliminating a Vladimir Putin who had decided not to dance to Washington’s tune so that he might save the Russian state, which had been disintegrating under his predecessor and Wall Street’s robber barons.

With President Obama as a mere spectator, the neocon/liberals could – without being ridiculed – pass off as a popular revolution the coup d’état they fomented in the Ukraine. And because of an unquestioned Atlanticist faith, which holds that without the policies of the United States the world cannot be safe for people of the Atlantic basin, the European elites that determine policy or comment on it joined their American counterparts in endorsing that reality.

As blind vassals the Europeans have adopted Washington’s enemies as their own. Hence the ease with which the European Union member states could be roped into a system of baseless economic sanctions against Russia, much to the detriment of their own economic interests. Layers upon layers of anti-Russian propaganda have piled up to bamboozle a largely unsuspecting public on both sides of the Ocean.

In the Netherlands, from where I have been watching all this, Putin was held personally responsible in much of the media for the shooting down of a Malaysian airliner flying over the Ukraine, which killed 298 people. No serious investigation was undertaken. The presentation of ‘almost definitive’ findings by the joint investigation team under Dutch leadership has neither included clues supplied by jet fighter cannon holes in the wrecked fuselage nor eyewitness stories, which would make the government in Kiev the prime suspect. Moscow’s challenging the integrity of the investigation, whose agreed-upon rules included publication of findings only if Kiev agreed with them, were met with great indignation by the Dutch Foreign and Prime Ministers.

As the fighting in Syria reached a phase when contradictions in the official Washington/NATO story demanded a stepping back for a fresh look, editors were forced into contortions to make sure that the baddies stayed bad, and that no matter how cruel and murderously they went about their occupation in Aleppo and elsewhere, the jihadi groups fighting to overthrow the secular Assad government in Damascus remained strictly labeled as moderate dissidents worthy of Western support, and the Russians as violators of Western values. Architects of an official reality that diverges widely from the facts you thought you knew must rely on faits accompli they achieve through military or police violence and intimidation, in combination with a fitting interpretation or a news blackout delivered by mainstream media.

These conditions have been widely obtained in the Atlantic basin through a gradual loss of political accountability at top levels, and through government agencies protected by venerated secrecy that are allowed to live lives of their own. As a result American and European populations have been dropped into a fantasy world, one under constant threat from terrorists and an evil dictator in Moscow. For Americans the never ending war waged by their own government, which leaves them with no choice but to condone mass murder, is supposedly necessary to keep them safe. For Europeans, at least those in the northern half, the numerous NATO tanks rolling up to the border of the Russian Federation and the massing of troops in that area are an extra guarantee, on top of the missiles that were already there, that Vladimir Putin will restrain his urges to grab a European country or two. On a smaller scale, when every May 4th the 1940-45 war dead are remembered in the Netherlands, we must now include the fallen in Afghanistan as if they were a sacrifice to defend us against the Taliban threat from behind the Hindu Kush.

Ever since the start of this millennium there has been a chain of realities as prophesied by Karl Rove, enhanced by terrorist attacks, which may or may not have been the work of actual terrorists, but whose reality is not questioned without risking one’s reputation. The geopolitical picture that they have helped build in most minds appears fairly consistent if one can keep one’s curiosity on a leash and one’s sense of contradiction sufficiently blunt. After all, the details of the official reality are filled in and smoothed out all the time by crafty campaigns produced in the PR world, with assistance from think tanks and academia.

But the question does reappear in one’s thoughts: do the politically prominent and the well-positioned editors, especially those known for having once possessed skeptical minds, actually believe it all? Do those members of the cabinet or parliament, who can get hot under their collar as they decry the latest revelation about one or other outrage committed by Putin, take seriously what they’re saying? Not all of them are believers, I know that from off the record conversations. But there appears to be a marked difference between the elite in government, in the media, in prominent social positions, and ordinary people who in these recent times of anguish about populism are sometimes referred to as uneducated. Quite a few among the latter appear to think that something fishy is going on. This could be because in my experience the alert ones have educated themselves, something that is not generally understood by commentators who have made their way through the bureaucracy of standard higher education.

A disadvantage of being part of the elite is that you must stick to the accepted story. If you deviate from it, and have your thoughts run rather far away from it, which is quite inevitable once you begin with your deviation, you can no longer be trusted by those around you. If you are a journalist and depend for your income on a mainstream newspaper or are hired by a TV company, you run the risk of losing your job if you do not engage in self-censorship.

Consequently, publications that used to be rightly known as quality newspapers have turned into unreadable rags. The newspaper that was my employer for a couple of decades used to be edited on the premise that its correspondents rather than authorities were always correct in what they were saying. Today greater loyalty to the reality created in Washington and Langley cannot be imagined. For much of northern Europe the official story that originates in the United States is amplified by the BBC and other once reliable purveyors of news and opinion like the Guardian, the Financial Times and the (always less reliable) Economist.

Repetition lends an ever greater aura of truth to the nonsense that is relentlessly repeated on the pages of once serious publications. Detailed analyses of developments understood through strings of false clues give the fictions ever more weight in learned heads and debates in parliament. At the time of writing, the grave concern spread across the opinion pages on my side of the Atlantic is about how Putin’s meddling in upcoming European elections can be prevented.

The realities Rove predicted have infantilized parliamentary debates, current affairs discussion and lecture events, and anything of a supposedly serious nature on TV. These now conform to comic book simplicities of evil, heroes and baddies. They have produced a multitude of editorials with facts upside-down. They force even those who advise against provoking Moscow to include a remark or two about Putin being a murderer or tyrant, lest they could be mistaken for traitors to Enlightenment values or even as Russian puppets, as I have been. Layers of unreality have incapacitated learned and serious people to think clearly about the world and how it came to be that way.

How could Rove’s predictions so totally materialize? There’s a simple answer: ‘they’ got away with momentous lies at an early stage. The more authorities lie successfully the more they are likely to lie again in a big way to serve the purposes of earlier lies. The ‘they’ stands for those individuals and groups in the power system who operate beyond legal limits as a hydra-headed entity, whose coordination depends on the project, campaign, mission, or operation at hand. Those with much power got away with excessive extralegal use of it since the beginning of this century because systems of holding the powerful to account have crumbled on both sides of the Atlantic. Hence, potential opposition to what the reality architects were doing dwindled to almost nothing. At the same time, people whose job or personal inclination leads them to ferret out truth were made to feel guilty for pursuing it.

The best way, I think, to make sense of how this works is to study it as a type of intimidation. Sticking to the official story because you have to may not be quite as bad as forced religious conversion with a gun pointed at your head, but it belongs to the same category. It begins with the triggering of odd feelings of guilt. At least that is how I remember it. Living in Tokyo, I had just read Mark Lane’s Rush To Judgment, the first major demolishing in book form of the Warren Report on the murder of John F. Kennedy, when I became aware that I had begun to belong to an undesirable category of people who were taking the existence of conspiracies seriously. We all owe thanks to writers of Internet-based samizdat literature who’ve recently reminded us that the pejorative use of the conspiracy label stems from one of the greatest misinformation successes of the CIA begun in 1967.

So the campaign to make journalists feel guilty for their embarrassing questions dates from before Dick Cheney and Rove and Bush. But it has only reached a heavy duty phase after the moment that I see as having triggered the triumph of political untruth.

We have experienced massive systemic intimidation since 9/11. For the wider public we have the absurdities of airport security – initially evidenced by mountains of nail-clippers – reminding everyone of the arbitrary coercive potential that rests with the authorities. Every time people are made to take off their belts and shoes – to stick only to the least inane instances – they are reminded: yes, we can do this to you! Half of Boston or all of France can be placed under undeclared martial law to tell people: yes, we have you under full control! For journalists unexamined guilt feelings still play a major role. The serious ones feel guilty for wanting to ask disturbing questions, and so they reaffirm that they still belong to ‘sane’ humanity rather than the segment with extraterrestrials in flying saucers in its belief system. But there is a confused interaction with another guilty feeling of not having pursued unanswered questions. Its remedy appears to be a doubling down on the official story. Why throw in fairly common lines like “I have no time for truthers” unless you feel that this is where the shoe pinches?

You will have noticed a fairly common response when the 9/11 massacre enters a discussion. Smart people will say that they “will not go there”, which brings to mind the “here be dragons” warning on uncharted bits of medieval maps. That response is not stupid. It hints at an understanding that there is no way back once you enter that realm. There is simply no denying that if you accept the essential conclusions of the official 9/11 report you must also concede that laws of nature stopped working on that particular day. And, true enough, if you do go there and bear witness publicly to what you see, you may well be devoured; your career in many government positions, the media and even academia is likely to come to an end.

So, for the time being we are stuck with a considerable chunk of terra incognita relating to recognized political knowledge; which is an indispensable knowledge if you want to get current world affairs and the American role in it into proper perspective.

Mapping the motives of those who decide “not to go there” may be a way to begin breaking through this disastrous deadlock. Holding onto your job is an honorable motivation when you have a family to maintain. The career motivation is not something to scorn. There is also an entirely reasonable expectation that once you go there you lose your voice publicly to address very important social abuse and political misdeeds. I think it is not difficult to detect authors active on internet samizdat sites who have that foremost in mind. Another possible reason for not going there is the more familiar one, akin to the denial that one has a dreadful disease. Also possible is an honorable position of wishing to preserve social order in the face of a prospect of very dramatic political upheaval caused by revelations about a crime so huge that hardly anything in America’s history can be compared to it. Where could such a thing end – civil war? Martial law?

What I find more difficult to stomach is the position of someone who is worshiped by what used to be the left, and who has been guiding that class of politically interested Americans as to where they can and cannot go. Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes. One can only hope that this overrated analyst of the establishment, who helps keep the most embarrassing questions out of the public sphere, trips over the contradictions and preposterousness of his own judgments and crumples in full view of his audience.

The triumph of political untruth has brought into being a vast system of political intimidation. Remember then that the intimidater does not really care what you believe or not, but impresses you with the fact that you have no choice. That is the essence of the exercise of brute power. With false flag events the circumstantial evidence sometimes appears quite transparently false and, indeed could be interpreted as having been purposeful. Consider the finding of passports or identity papers accidentally left by terrorists, or their almost always having been known to and suspected by the police? What of their death through police shooting before they can be interrogated? Could these be taunting signals of ultimate power to a doubting public: Now you! Dare contradict us! Are the persons killed by the police the same who committed the crime? Follow-up questions once considered perfectly normal and necessary by news media editors are conspicuous by their absence.

How can anyone quarrel with Rove’s prophecy. He told Suskind that we will forever be studying newly created realities. This is what the mainstream media continue to do. His words made it very clear: you have no choice!

A question that will be in the minds of perhaps many as they consider the newly sworn in president of the United States, who like John F. Kennedy appears to have understood that “Intelligence” leads a dangerously uncontrolled life of its own: At what point will he give in to the powers of an invisible government, as he is made to reckon that he also has no choice?

 

Karel van Wolferen is a Dutch journalist and retired professor at the University of Amsterdam. Since 1969, he has published over twenty books on public policy issues, which have been translated into eleven languages and sold over a million copies worldwide. As a foreign correspondent for NRC Handelsblad , one of Holland’s leading newspapers, he received the highest Dutch award for journalism, and over the years his articles have appeared in The New York Times , The Washington Post , The New Republic , The National Interest , Le Monde , and numerous other newspapers and magazines.

 
214 Comments to "Karl Rove's Prophecy"
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. I just discovered the “Jimmy Dore” show on youtube. He seems like a profane oddball, but is a brilliant Sandersest progressive who speaks the truth. Watch as he demolishes failed Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi, and watch other clips as he dismantles the corrupt Democratic party.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Elentari
    According a a knowledgeable man, Art from Philly, whose website site is
    noplaceforcorruption.com, aman who is vwell informed about the Mafia, Nancy Pelosi's Grandfather was closely connected with Lucky Luciano.

    Actually, John McCain is also closely linked with the Mafia through his wife - and one wonders whether there are many politicians who are not these days.

    Trump is said to have good relations with the Mafia in New York!
    , @Thirdeye
    Thanks for that.
    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
    /article/karl-roves-prophecy/#comment-1736943
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. “Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes.”

    Really? Can you provide a quote and link to substantiate this claim?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chet Roman
    Do a Google search of "Chomsky and 9/11" and you will see that Chomsky belittles people who questions the official "truth" about 9/11. Below is just one link to a presentation he makes at a university. He has a similar position on the Israeli lobby. He discounts and denies the lobby's strength and control over Congress and U.S. policies. He actually believes that it is the U.S. that is in control and uses Israel for its own benefit, a surreal view for someone who is so very well informed. But not a surprising perspective for a Zionist.

    https://www.rt.com/usa/noam-chomsky-911-truthers-342/
    , @Jeff Blankfort
    I do not know the writer but this is one of the most important and brilliant articles/essays I have read in a very long time. Regarding Chomsky, if you are looking for well documented evidence of his role in interpreting and controlling responses within the American Left to the Israel-Palestine conflict, here it is, well documented. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Blankfort0525.htm
    , @Arcturus21
    https://www.rt.com/usa/noam-chomsky-911-truthers-342/

    Noam shows what he is - a pompous, vainglorious apologist for the clerisy.
  3. alexander says:

    Thank you for a fine article , Mr. Van Wolferen,

    I too recall the statement attributed to Karl Rove.

    There is another word one can use, when the “powers that be “choose to “create their own reality”

    Its called “FRAUD”.

    As a matter of fact….it is fraud.

    This systemic fraud …….This “empire of fraud”…… is responsible for liquidating 14.3 trillion dollars of US solvency in a mere 16 years, and may well have lead to the complete collapse of the United States of America.

    Americans now look at all these people…these “Empire of fraud” people….with absolute contempt….They are total failures.

    They are a complete joke.

    They , and their deep state “empire of lies” ….have utterly failed our nation.

    Will they ever be held to account for what they have done ?

    I guess that remains to be seen.

    Read More
    • Agree: jacques sheete
    • Replies: @Wally
    It's helps to realize that Chomsky is a rabid, irrational Zionist, supporter of "that shitty little country".
    see:
    'Noam Chomsky says Hitler ruined a good thing'
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10884

    However, there is no better example of fraud then the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers'.

    The 'holocau$t' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship.
    Truth doesn't need protection from scrutiny & free speech.

    Dare to examine the absurd & laughable 'holocaust' storyline rationally, logically, scientifically and it falls apart like the house-of-cards that it is.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since at least 1869?

    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg

    , @Eileen Kuch
    BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  4. Dan Hayes says:

    Prof Van Wolferen,

    One way we will surely know that the new administration has given into the powers of an invisible government is if Victoria Nuland retains her State Department position!

    Read More
  5. AaronB says:

    There is something timeless and inevitable about all this.

    Once you grasp how human societies really work, what a fraud power and position are, the only intelligent thing is to become a monk, or a hermit.

    Or, if you aren’t religiously minded, a careless hedonist.

    And yet there are people who, once they understand how empty status is, how much based on fraud and illusion, are inspired even more to play the game of power. These people I cannot understand. I cannot understand seeing through the illusions of social power and thinking – yes, this is how I want to live the rest of my days, playing out an illusion.

    The problem is, the only way to win the power-game is to use dirty methods. You have no choice but to use the weapons of your opponents, as the alt-right has discovered. By now, everyone knows how the alt-right consciously models itself on the tactics of the left.

    But means are not neutral, and tactics have a way of transforming you from within. So the alt-right, soon enough, will find that to truly gain and keep power, it will have to really become, in its inmost being, just like the left – shutting down debate, using intimidation and mockery, and all the rest. These means can never be dispensed with ,and as the alt-right becomes a new power-center it will attract people who care nothing for alt-right values and are only out for power, and the alt-right will be transformed from within, just as the left was. Taboos will be different, the boundaries of permitted discourse will shift, but soon, what is morally permitted will begin to display a remarkable coincidence with the selfish interest of people in power.

    This is the fate of all revolutions, and the eternal farce of politics.

    And yet, there is a way out, if we wanted to take it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Johann
    When I was a young boy at a Catholic school I learned about Saint Anthony of the desert, he was a monk who went to live in the desert around Egypt in order to live the integra vita. Now I understand why he fled the corrupted world and sought hermitage.
    , @Madhava reader
    Prompted by the hints at ancient India sageness here and there in your comment I went to check out your previous comments too.

    The one that struck me the most is the ingenious way you found to portray the intellectual decadence of the West where you said compared to good ole days Oxbridge thinkers more recent ones have lost a dimension of thinking.

    It is exactly that: the brain's left side has taken over, and what results are minds better than ever before at some things while blind to the rest: an hyper-rational but rationality-bound intellect.
    Rationality, a dimension of thought, risks to come to coincide with thought as a whole.

    Where I don't agree is where you see careless hedonism as the only way of life for the irreligiously minded and an hermit-like existence as something that will appeal only to the religiously minded.

    One can be an atheist and choose the life of hermits, and one can be a theist and still want to involve himself with the noisy carnival parade of social life, can't they?

    It also struck me that you speak of "reality" as a faith and things beyond the reach of our sensory-derived and mentally-constructed world which, as alien from humbleness as it's our distinctive mark to be we equate to the World.
    I guess those super-scientists wondering "how come we are alone in the universe" who don't suspect any kind of entities, living or not, can be "around us" but we can't detect them perhaps strike you as childish as they do me.

    You wouldn't believe how countless people who are otherwise more intelligent than I am have dismissed my hints at the (very likely) possibility and declared me a Big Nut.
    That's how they are to react when the Veil of Maya is imperiled by your comments.
    I think it's part of natural self-defense mechanisms. The huge drive to claim there is reality comes from the huge drive to claim that they themselves are (I think, therefore I am! If what I think isn't there, how am I sure I am?).

    I have no clue as to how it happened, but philosophers in ancient India realized much if not all of this (Madhava's Jivanmukti-viveka is a very good recapitulation of what they knew).
    Greek philosophy, which you say is the true philosophy, was taking the same path before Plato.
    But, how to say, it was making them too sad.
    Plato invented another world, where everything was like... like it gave great relief to believe it was. Aristotle invented the faith that reality was logical (while what is logical can't be but our mind's world we call reality), and all what has come since then in the West, making it the factor of world history and culture, has come from the Greek way of looking at the world (believing it logical thus believing we can modify it, organize it, direct it, and why not bring it to perfection. All what opposes these designs will be "evil", what enables them "good").

    We can say that the humble clear-minded Indian view, while much closer to truth, led them to inactivity and irrelevance, while the monumental Greek (and then, also, Judaic: see what Freud wrote on Moses) error led to by far the most monumental mundane outcomes -- from cultural to technological undisputed preminence -- .

    Free will was the most daring invention of Western philosophy.

    How come you

    And yet, there is a way out, if we wanted to take it.
     
    subscribe to it?
    , @utu
    "Taboos will be different, the boundaries of permitted discourse will shift, but soon, what is morally permitted will begin to display a remarkable coincidence with the selfish interest of people in power."

    It is sad that such an outcome seems to be inevitable. So what is left there to do? Withdraw and tend your own garden like Voltaire's Candide? Or prepare for a new fight?
  6. Could all this be true (and it is) because all modern western societies have become instruments of what Henry Ford warned us against, “The International Jew”?

    The bankers have had total control of the top of our systems. Trump might be a temporary setback but these people surely have enough instruments at hand to bring him down before his asserted aim of Peace with Russia and “co-operation” in international affairs is established as any kind of habit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Davis
    "...these people surely have enough instruments at hand to bring him down before his asserted aim of Peace with Russia..."

    Conversely, as president, he has enough power to bring ***THEM*** down. He could put them all in the dock for war crimes. That would terminate their careers and life as they knew it.

    The establishment insiders -- the members of "the club" -- have relied on the unspoken rule that none of them are to be held accountable. Obama's famous "Look forward not back" is that rule in action. He wanted to be admitted to the club.

    Despite his wealth, Trump is not a club member. He's a blue collar billionaire. A bad boy mentored by Roy Cohn in the art of destroying one's adversaries. So, if "the Club" messes with him it may turn out that they picked the wrong guy to mess with. We shall see.
  7. JRB says: • Website

    Good to learn that at least someone who is or was involved with the NRC has kept his sanity. If you compare an edition of the NRC today with one of 30 years ago the difference is unbelievable.

    Read More
  8. Realist says:

    Karl Rove, helped elect one of the dumbest bastards to the office of President of The United States.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Karl Rove, helped elect one of the dumbest bastards to the office of President of The United States.
     
    Rove, Cheney and the neocons needed a president dumb enough never to figure out what they were up to. Enter Curious George ...
  9. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    I suggest readers who appreciated this piece to dig a little through Wolferen’s other pieces on the site.

    I hope to find him on this site more often.

    Read More
  10. Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes.

    I have been struggling to discern what is going on with Chomsky. It’s almost as if we need to call in an exorcist to remove the demons. Is it age? Has his family been threatened? It makes no sense to me.

    Consequently, publications that used to be rightly known as quality newspapers have turned into unreadable rags. The newspaper that was my employer for a couple of decades used to be edited on the premise that its correspondents rather than authorities were always correct in what they were saying.

    Until the publishers allowed Bush to insist correspondents be embedded with the very troops they were expected to be impartial in reporting on, as was done in all prior conflicts.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    It's far worse than that. The converse was true. The DoD, for example, had its propagandists embedded in CNN's newsroom.

    http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/why-were-government-propaganda-experts-working-on-news-at-cnn/
    , @Jeff Blankfort
    Re Chomsky, it has nothing to do with age. He has been playing the same tunes with the same fiddle for some time. Here is what a mutual friend, the late Israeli professor and political analyst, Israel Shahak, had to say about him in 1991:

    Much of what Chomsky tells us is �not controversial� invariably proves to be very much so and particularly when it comes to the relations between Israel and the White House. The late revered Israeli scholar and human rights activist, Professor Israel Shahak, pointed out that Chomsky�s analysis suffers from his:

    [U]ndoubted tendency of demonizing the American presidency and the Executive in general, while ignoring the Legislature, but also from his very mistaken, in my opinion, tendency of assuming that not only the principles but literally everything concerning the American imperialism was laid in detail long ago, in 1944 or about that time, and from then on the policy is, so to say, a follow-up of instructions from a computer.

    This ignores not only the human factor in the US itself but also the completely different nature of the foes and the victims of the US during the last decades. There can be no doubt, in my own opinion, that the actual policies of the US are complex even when they are evil, influenced, as in the case of all other states, by many factors of which AIPAC is one and human stupidity (for which he never allows) is another.

    And finally, this very insightful paragraph:
    But such simplistic theories, backed by his memory and ability to pick isolated examples (sometimes from a long time ago like his stock example of Eisenhower in the case of Israel while ignoring everything else from 1967 on) can appeal to [the] young who look for certainty and also for those who don't want to [be] engaged in actual work and so find substitute for it in crude and useless display of emotion. [60]
     
    This was taken from my article of more than a decade ago: "Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict, originally published in Left Curve and now found here: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Blankfort0525.htm
  11. @Robert Magill

    Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes.
     
    I have been struggling to discern what is going on with Chomsky. It's almost as if we need to call in an exorcist to remove the demons. Is it age? Has his family been threatened? It makes no sense to me.

    Consequently, publications that used to be rightly known as quality newspapers have turned into unreadable rags. The newspaper that was my employer for a couple of decades used to be edited on the premise that its correspondents rather than authorities were always correct in what they were saying.

     

    Until the publishers allowed Bush to insist correspondents be embedded with the very troops they were expected to be impartial in reporting on, as was done in all prior conflicts.


    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    It’s far worse than that. The converse was true. The DoD, for example, had its propagandists embedded in CNN’s newsroom.

    http://fair.org/take-action/action-alerts/why-were-government-propaganda-experts-working-on-news-at-cnn/

    Read More
  12. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    Every time people are made to take off their belts and shoes – to stick only to the least inane instances – they are reminded: yes, we can do this to you! Half of Boston or all of France can be placed under undeclared martial law to tell people: yes, we have you under full control!

    The Womens (so-called) Protest raised “Yes, we can do this to you . . . Yes, we have you under full control” to another level: masses of women made and wore pink horns, voluntarily signifying that they had approved of the desecrating activities of a profane group of Russian vandals.

    And that they endorse cuckolding their fathers, husbands, brothers.

    Those hats are horns, the horns of a cuckold.

    Those women willingly and gleefully self-controlled to cuckold the male of the species.

    The women’s protest rally was an international celebration of emasculation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Veritatis
    I understand how you can look at it as an "emasculation". However, I as a woman, see the "worldwide protest" as a manipulation of women's best instincts. It is difficult to generalize across nations, but here it goes: women are very much social creatures, we like to be part of a group, if possible find love and nurture in the group or groups we belong to. We often get sentimental about "our group" and want to defend it, even if it is just the book club.
    Whoever organized the protests is -amongst other things- manipulating women to defend the group (all women all over) against the attacker (Trump). It is promoting a false first loyalty, "the sisterhood", against better claims:those of family, neighborhood, country, church.
    In the vacuum of identity in which we live, women (and many men) are looking for meaning in manufactured causes and leadership in the wrong people (Madonna?!)
    Women and men do best when we work towards common goals. Life is not ONLY a struggle for power. We don't have to be angry at each other.
    , @woodNfish
    http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/

    Make sure you are looking at Monday's (1.23.17) entry.
    , @joe webb
    good.
    , @Wizard of Oz
    What did those women gleefully do? I'm profoundly uninterested in them but I suggest that, in trying to give meaning to what they were wearing/displaying you should first put team spirit/colours and next a desire to be a bit shocking.

    Consider how the malevolent critic would interpret a lot of southerners turning up in T shirts with Confederate flags.
  13. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    “There is only one power which really counts. The power of political pressure. We Jews are the most powerful people on earth, because we have this power, and we know how to apply it.” –
    Vladimir Jabotinsky, Jewish Daily Bulletin, July 27, 1935.

    Read More
  14. utu says:

    With a real media the ability to create the new reality by the MF elite would be greatly reduced. The MF elite is there to create the new reality. This is the nature of power. Every power. Media should be there to expose it. Are there systemic obstacles to have a real media?

    Read More
  15. anon1 says:

    The presentation of ‘almost definitive’ findings by the joint investigation team under Dutch leadership has neither included clues supplied by jet fighter cannon holes in the wrecked fuselage nor eyewitness stories, which would make the government in Kiev the prime suspect. Moscow’s challenging the integrity of the investigation, whose agreed-upon rules included publication of findings only if Kiev agreed with them, were met with great indignation by the Dutch Foreign and Prime Ministers.

    LOL. Still clinging to the jet fighter theory? Even the Russian trolls and propaganda websites now agree it was a SAM that shot MH17 down, they just claim it was the Ukranians that fired it. -1 for KVW.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Even the Russian trolls and propaganda websites now agree it was a SAM that shot MH17 down, they just claim it was the Ukranians that fired it.
     
    No, the jet theory is still making the rounds on the internet. To date, nobody has produced any satellite evidence that there was even a BUK-launch that day. However, radar from the Rostov-on-Don airport did show that MH17 was being shadowed by at least one other aircraft. So the mystery continues ...
    , @annamaria
    You mean that the US has finally provided the satellite images collected continuously over the "location of interest?' If not, then your assessment is either a product of ignorance or a malicious lie.
  16. Che Guava says:

    Haven’t finished reading this yet, but have to add, re.the hunting incident (not mentioned in this article as far as I have read it), where he shot a friend, it is clear evidence on Cheney’s part of idiocy on coordination, the friend he shot being a moron, Cheney being a moron, or Cheney having wanted to kill his friend. Some combination such as both of them being idiots is not unlikely.

    Prexident Trump is a big disappointment to people all over the world, these are still early days for a week or so, but it seems that if he had been honest about his intentions, the slogans would have been ‘Israel First!’ and ‘Make America Grovel Again’.

    Not that I think Sanders or Clinton wouldn’t be doing the same things in that regard.

    Read More
  17. Johann says:
    @AaronB
    There is something timeless and inevitable about all this.

    Once you grasp how human societies really work, what a fraud power and position are, the only intelligent thing is to become a monk, or a hermit.

    Or, if you aren't religiously minded, a careless hedonist.

    And yet there are people who, once they understand how empty status is, how much based on fraud and illusion, are inspired even more to play the game of power. These people I cannot understand. I cannot understand seeing through the illusions of social power and thinking - yes, this is how I want to live the rest of my days, playing out an illusion.

    The problem is, the only way to win the power-game is to use dirty methods. You have no choice but to use the weapons of your opponents, as the alt-right has discovered. By now, everyone knows how the alt-right consciously models itself on the tactics of the left.

    But means are not neutral, and tactics have a way of transforming you from within. So the alt-right, soon enough, will find that to truly gain and keep power, it will have to really become, in its inmost being, just like the left - shutting down debate, using intimidation and mockery, and all the rest. These means can never be dispensed with ,and as the alt-right becomes a new power-center it will attract people who care nothing for alt-right values and are only out for power, and the alt-right will be transformed from within, just as the left was. Taboos will be different, the boundaries of permitted discourse will shift, but soon, what is morally permitted will begin to display a remarkable coincidence with the selfish interest of people in power.

    This is the fate of all revolutions, and the eternal farce of politics.

    And yet, there is a way out, if we wanted to take it.

    When I was a young boy at a Catholic school I learned about Saint Anthony of the desert, he was a monk who went to live in the desert around Egypt in order to live the integra vita. Now I understand why he fled the corrupted world and sought hermitage.

    Read More
  18. Elentari says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    I just discovered the "Jimmy Dore" show on youtube. He seems like a profane oddball, but is a brilliant Sandersest progressive who speaks the truth. Watch as he demolishes failed Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi, and watch other clips as he dismantles the corrupt Democratic party.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HjXFh0qBCw

    According a a knowledgeable man, Art from Philly, whose website site is
    noplaceforcorruption.com, aman who is vwell informed about the Mafia, Nancy Pelosi’s Grandfather was closely connected with Lucky Luciano.

    Actually, John McCain is also closely linked with the Mafia through his wife – and one wonders whether there are many politicians who are not these days.

    Trump is said to have good relations with the Mafia in New York!

    Read More
  19. Superb article.

    If you are a journalist and depend for your income on a mainstream newspaper or are hired by a TV company, you run the risk of losing your job if you do not engage in self-censorship.

    It’s much worse than that. If you refuse to play the game you can wind up maimed for life or killed.

    Repetition lends an ever greater aura of truth to the nonsense that is relentlessly repeated on the pages of once serious publications.

    The realities Rove predicted have infantilized parliamentary debates, current affairs discussion and lecture events, and anything of a supposedly serious nature on TV. These now conform to comic book simplicities of evil, heroes and baddies.

    Yes and yes. For textbook examples of “comic book simplicities of evil,” look no further than WW2 propaganda. 75 years later, most people still seem to believe most of it. People must learn to question “authority” and boycott all sources of lies. (I can dream, can’t I?)

    We all owe thanks to writers of Internet-based samizdat literature who’ve recently reminded us that the pejorative use of the conspiracy label stems from one of the greatest misinformation successes of the CIA begun in 1967.

    Bingo.

    So the campaign to make journalists feel guilty for their embarrassing questions dates from before Dick Cheney and Rove and Bush…

    Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes.

    Yes, the Marxists had fine tuned the tactic of ridiculing and mocking even before WW1. It was quite characteristic of Saint Karl’s rantings in fact, and I’ve found that it’s usually pretty easy to detect Zionists, modern day Marxists, neocons and a lot of other liars by their consistent use of those approaches. The more stridently they mock and ridicule the more likely it is that they’re lying it seems.

    “And I ridiculed the whole business of intelligence, because that’s the best way to get on with it-ridicule and belittle ourselves, and say what an awful lot of duffers we are, can’t get the facts straight, that sort of thing.”

    -Noel Coward, as quoted in “A Man Called Intrepid” by William Stevenson, 1976. Page 199.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    It’s much worse than that. If you refuse to play the game you can wind up maimed for life or killed.
     
    Yup. Consider the case of Seth Rich, who was killed for leaking the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks.
  20. Agent76 says:

    Dec 31, 2016 The US Continues With A Neocon Foreign Policy

    The foreign policy of the United States over the last 36 years has been a train wreck, and the same people responsible for bringing us unwinnable wars and constant conflict are trying to weasel their way back into power. So who are these people and what are they hoping to accomplish?

    Read More
  21. Yak-15 says:

    “Fighter cannon holes.”

    Fighters use explosive ammunition that are coupled with proximity fuses. No such cannon holes would exist if a fighter shot it’s weapon because the shells detonate before impact.

    In fact, the pieces of wreckage of the downed jet liner showed signs of a designed shrapnel load present in a air defense missile. Those are the shotgun type holes seen in some of the pieces of plane.

    Perhaps the Russians did not shoot the plane down. But an auto cannon from a fighter jet definitely did not do it.

    Furthermore, the amount of shells it would take to down a large civilian jetliner like the 777 would like exceed the ammunition capacity of most jet fighters unless the pilot’s aim perfectly took out both engines.(160 rds, half of which are likely to miss due to aiming error, malfunction and windage).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Furthermore, the amount of shells it would take to down a large civilian jetliner like the 777 would like exceed the ammunition capacity of most jet fighters unless the pilot’s aim perfectly took out both engines.
     
    If you follow the fighter-jet theory, the purpose of the machine-gun fire was to kill the pilots immediately, so that they would not be able to radio anybody once the air-to-air missile struck the fuselage. It was the latter that probably brought down the plane.
    , @Thirdeye
    Agree, especially since the 777 was flying at the limit of the Su-24's envelope and it would have been next to impossible to close the range enough in a climbing tail chase. The significance of the Su-24 was that it proved that Kiev was lying when they claimed that they were not conducting air operations in the area. That's why the air traffic control radar data were suppressed.

    This started out as a good article until Wolferen started going into la-la-land with the discredited aerial shoot-down theory and the 9/11 "truth" nonsense.
  22. Che Guava says:

    I finished reading your article, Mr. van Wolferen, it is a good piece!

    Would posit that Russian mass-media is among the world leaders for truth, much in eastern Asia (at least Japan and China) has the aim of making people stupid in terms of political thought.

    Sth. Korea is an exception to an extent, this is part of the reason for the fall of Pres. Park II.

    In western Europe and the USA, it is usually for change that is inimical to most readers.

    The Guardian is particularly despicable. It has the strangest of political lines, and, most ironically, is calling its comments ‘Comment is Free’. It seems that was a slogan of a long-ago chief editor or publisher.

    Any comment that is slightly deviating from the lines (they are having various) of the Guardianistas will being deleted, and harassment of all posts will follow. They are sometimes allowing comments, but never when they are frightened of a pointed contradiction. Sure, a *few* of their *no comments evar* articles are because they are on legal cases, but such *no comments* articles are about 10% of articles where they don’t open comments. For most, it is because the staff writer is saying something stupid that they don’t want contradicted. Totalitarian, indeed.

    The Times, (the British one, the others are all later and the NYT is particularly irritating to try to claim that title), from my reading of old quotes and articles, it once reflected the opinions of particular factions of the Brit. ruling class, one of our Sunday papers used to run a supplement from it, so was able to see it now, used to buy the Sunday edition mainly for that, for language study and laughing at the stupidity. It is a cheap-propaganda-filled tabloid now.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "The Guardian is particularly despicable."
    Agree. A scoundrel usurped the name of a virtuous person and this makes everybody wonder why the formerly reliable Guardian has been publishing propaganda trash. And it is true that the Guardian' comment section is a perfect censorship machine. The Soviet Union lookout for a dissent on steroids.
  23. Agent76 says:

    Mar 27, 2016 Neoconservatives Driving World to War

    Dr. Paul Craig Roberts has a new book out titled “The Neoconservative Threat To World Order.” In it, he talks about the dreadful shape of the global economy and how war might be forced on the world. Dr. Roberts, who is also a former Assistant Treasury Secretary, says, “The Neoconservative ideology is American world hegemony . . . this means you have to subdue the others, and this includes Russia and China.

    Read More
  24. Don Diego says:

    As regards the statement ” Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes. ”
    He not only has ridiculed those who question the official story on 9/11, he played the same role in defending the Warren Commission and telling the left to “not go there”, to not question the official story. The late Alexander Cockburn took similar positions on both 9/11 and the JFK assassination. A good book mentioning Chomsky and Cockburn´s acceptance of the Warren Commission report is HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US by Schotz.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bruce Marshall
    Yes it is always important to call out gatekeepers, left and right, to which Chomsky is a notorious amalgam poisoning the waters with his learned hypocrisy of the smoozy nerdy authoritarian.

    Yes 9/11 can not be reckoned without referencing the the JFK assassination and the art of the cover-up, the Warren Commission.

    When asked as to what happened on 9/11 I have replied for quite a while that the only probable cause is that the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally actually kept going...emerging
    from a wormhole to be that which struck North Tower, then the South Tower, then the Penatagon Shenksville and then lets not forget Building Seven to wrap up the day. Basically the official story is bunk, instead of a single bullet, we have the magic passport?

    Look Ahfganistan and Iraq need to sue for retributions per the destruction of their nations due to lies. This may be the only way to break out of this.....other then Trump....He may have already shown a card, that things go smooth......

    Here is a relevant article by Ray Peat....as it discusses academic authoritarians, where Chomsky is the archetype.

    http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/authoritarians.shtml
  25. @AaronB
    There is something timeless and inevitable about all this.

    Once you grasp how human societies really work, what a fraud power and position are, the only intelligent thing is to become a monk, or a hermit.

    Or, if you aren't religiously minded, a careless hedonist.

    And yet there are people who, once they understand how empty status is, how much based on fraud and illusion, are inspired even more to play the game of power. These people I cannot understand. I cannot understand seeing through the illusions of social power and thinking - yes, this is how I want to live the rest of my days, playing out an illusion.

    The problem is, the only way to win the power-game is to use dirty methods. You have no choice but to use the weapons of your opponents, as the alt-right has discovered. By now, everyone knows how the alt-right consciously models itself on the tactics of the left.

    But means are not neutral, and tactics have a way of transforming you from within. So the alt-right, soon enough, will find that to truly gain and keep power, it will have to really become, in its inmost being, just like the left - shutting down debate, using intimidation and mockery, and all the rest. These means can never be dispensed with ,and as the alt-right becomes a new power-center it will attract people who care nothing for alt-right values and are only out for power, and the alt-right will be transformed from within, just as the left was. Taboos will be different, the boundaries of permitted discourse will shift, but soon, what is morally permitted will begin to display a remarkable coincidence with the selfish interest of people in power.

    This is the fate of all revolutions, and the eternal farce of politics.

    And yet, there is a way out, if we wanted to take it.

    Prompted by the hints at ancient India sageness here and there in your comment I went to check out your previous comments too.

    The one that struck me the most is the ingenious way you found to portray the intellectual decadence of the West where you said compared to good ole days Oxbridge thinkers more recent ones have lost a dimension of thinking.

    It is exactly that: the brain’s left side has taken over, and what results are minds better than ever before at some things while blind to the rest: an hyper-rational but rationality-bound intellect.
    Rationality, a dimension of thought, risks to come to coincide with thought as a whole.

    Where I don’t agree is where you see careless hedonism as the only way of life for the irreligiously minded and an hermit-like existence as something that will appeal only to the religiously minded.

    One can be an atheist and choose the life of hermits, and one can be a theist and still want to involve himself with the noisy carnival parade of social life, can’t they?

    It also struck me that you speak of “reality” as a faith and things beyond the reach of our sensory-derived and mentally-constructed world which, as alien from humbleness as it’s our distinctive mark to be we equate to the World.
    I guess those super-scientists wondering “how come we are alone in the universe” who don’t suspect any kind of entities, living or not, can be “around us” but we can’t detect them perhaps strike you as childish as they do me.

    You wouldn’t believe how countless people who are otherwise more intelligent than I am have dismissed my hints at the (very likely) possibility and declared me a Big Nut.
    That’s how they are to react when the Veil of Maya is imperiled by your comments.
    I think it’s part of natural self-defense mechanisms. The huge drive to claim there is reality comes from the huge drive to claim that they themselves are (I think, therefore I am! If what I think isn’t there, how am I sure I am?).

    I have no clue as to how it happened, but philosophers in ancient India realized much if not all of this (Madhava’s Jivanmukti-viveka is a very good recapitulation of what they knew).
    Greek philosophy, which you say is the true philosophy, was taking the same path before Plato.
    But, how to say, it was making them too sad.
    Plato invented another world, where everything was like… like it gave great relief to believe it was. Aristotle invented the faith that reality was logical (while what is logical can’t be but our mind’s world we call reality), and all what has come since then in the West, making it the factor of world history and culture, has come from the Greek way of looking at the world (believing it logical thus believing we can modify it, organize it, direct it, and why not bring it to perfection. All what opposes these designs will be “evil”, what enables them “good”).

    We can say that the humble clear-minded Indian view, while much closer to truth, led them to inactivity and irrelevance, while the monumental Greek (and then, also, Judaic: see what Freud wrote on Moses) error led to by far the most monumental mundane outcomes — from cultural to technological undisputed preminence — .

    Free will was the most daring invention of Western philosophy.

    How come you

    And yet, there is a way out, if we wanted to take it.

    subscribe to it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AaronB
    Thanks for your interesting comment.

    Its quite possible to be an atheist hermit. Some people are extremely disillusioned without being particularly religious, like Ted Kaczynski. But seeing through the human farce tends to open one up to religious possibilities, at the very least. If you read the religious literature, at a certain stage on the path, after the death of the ego, its quite common to return to the "marketplace", to share your liberating insight with the rest of humanity - who, of course and inevitably and always, reject and mock the message. But at that stage, the religious mystic has dissolved enough of his self to not mind the mortification.

    There really has been a "loss of dimension" in Western thinking over the past 50 years, and I don't know how better to describe it. It's not like we're stupider, but there's been a kind of "narrowing" of perspective, a massive deflation. Fewer and fewer elements are considered, and issues are seen from an ever narrower perspective. What we are seeing, really, is the final stages of the reductionist paradigm, which is rapidly reaching its last stage of absurdity.The intellectual history of the past 500 years in the West is the ever increasing expansion of reductionist thinking, but its yielding less and less power, more and more absurdity, and ever increasing alienation and despair, undermining societies that organize themselves according to it precepts. Like many things, the search for power seems ultimately to undermine itself - the sacrifices needed to gain power leads to nihilism, and thus ultimately to the loss of power.

    In hindsight, the Western quest for power always had a time-limit, and we are now approaching it.

    I am not in the least surprised that people find you crazy for suggesting there might be a "suprasensible" realm. That's the standard response. Even though its philosophically unchallengeable, its a huge threat to convention, and it calls into question entire ways of life.

    The Greeks were problematic, I agree, and much that is wrong with the West can be traced back to them. But in contrast with later European philosophy, especially in the Anglo-sphere, they never completely lost sight of the true role of philosophy, which is about how to live. Socrates and the pre-socratics, and later the hellenistic philosophers, were, of course, the best in this regard. Plato's philosophy has strong Eastern overtones, and the Western mystical tradition derives from neo-Platonism, and many scholars see an Eastern connection here. The similarity of early, pre-church Christianity to Buddhism is also apparent.

    Eastern philosophies and religions have very strong affinities to pre-modern and Medieval ways of thinking - the old West and East weren't so different, after all. The real dichotomy is between the "modern" and the "traditional", not so much East and West. Even the logical and practical Aristotle thought "techne" was the least important knowledge achievable by man, and placed "impractical" contemplation at the summit of human thought.

    The "humble and clear minded" Eastern approach can be usefully opposed to the "grandiose" element in the West, I agree. As you say, one leas to much mundane power, the other not so much - but it has led to personal transformation and bliss, which should be the true occupation of mankind. Power is a substitute satisfaction.
  26. We’re very pleased to run this provocative new piece

    Finding it necessary to introduce this fine article as provocative sez a lot about the gullibility extant.

    Read More
    • Replies: @utu
    I really did not get. Why the introduction? By unz.com standards it is not that provocative.
    , @edNels

    "We’re very pleased to run this provocative new piece…"
     
    __________________

    Finding it necessary to introduce this fine article as provocative sez a lot about...]
     
    I think the intro was intended to be humorous,

    and will also stand in for a disclaimer, distancing device: That is the joke! apropos the content of the article which includes several instances of the ironic refusal to discuss certain off limits topics by a couple of the days reputedly most outspoken media critics, Chomsky and A. Coburn, etc.
    , @Skeptikal
    To me the piece is like drinking nice, clean water.
    Not provocative but confirming of what so many of us know to be true.
    Really great to read.

    The reason for the "provocative" label might be that the author clearly calls out the whole manufactured "conspiracy" meme and clearly implies that wherever the word is used to discredit honest inquiry, that is exactly where the Rove-like trolls managing our public discourse are in fact managing a cover-up. It *is* a brilliant bit of sleight-of-hand.

    Van Wolferen, by putting the conspiracy meme out there on a tray, is making it a bit easier for everyone to examine and dissect and ultimately, it is to be hoped, deconstruct and smash this extremely successful rhetorical stranglehold.

  27. Veritatis says:
    @Anonymous

    Every time people are made to take off their belts and shoes – to stick only to the least inane instances – they are reminded: yes, we can do this to you! Half of Boston or all of France can be placed under undeclared martial law to tell people: yes, we have you under full control!
     
    The Womens (so-called) Protest raised "Yes, we can do this to you . . . Yes, we have you under full control" to another level: masses of women made and wore pink horns, voluntarily signifying that they had approved of the desecrating activities of a profane group of Russian vandals.

    And that they endorse cuckolding their fathers, husbands, brothers.

    Those hats are horns, the horns of a cuckold.

    Those women willingly and gleefully self-controlled to cuckold the male of the species.

    The women's protest rally was an international celebration of emasculation.

    I understand how you can look at it as an “emasculation”. However, I as a woman, see the “worldwide protest” as a manipulation of women’s best instincts. It is difficult to generalize across nations, but here it goes: women are very much social creatures, we like to be part of a group, if possible find love and nurture in the group or groups we belong to. We often get sentimental about “our group” and want to defend it, even if it is just the book club.
    Whoever organized the protests is -amongst other things- manipulating women to defend the group (all women all over) against the attacker (Trump). It is promoting a false first loyalty, “the sisterhood”, against better claims:those of family, neighborhood, country, church.
    In the vacuum of identity in which we live, women (and many men) are looking for meaning in manufactured causes and leadership in the wrong people (Madonna?!)
    Women and men do best when we work towards common goals. Life is not ONLY a struggle for power. We don’t have to be angry at each other.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Indeed, the 'women's march' was nothing more than Rebels Without a Clue.

    53% of all white women voted for Trump.

    62% of non-college degree white women voted for Trump.

    And who did we see at this childish event? The white women who lost, that's who. So where was their mandated 'diversity'?

    Yet there was no real issues. Rove vs. Wade is all about taxpayer funding of abortions, not whether women can or cannot get abortions. Their arguments are pure strawman, false.

    Why should US taxpayers be forced to pay for other people's abortions when those people made their own choice to have sex?

    Of course they won't discuss the fact that women are legally stoned in Muslim countries, or that women can't even drive cars in Muslim countries, and the fact that gays are legally executed for being gay in Muslim countries.
    And that Hillary took millions in 'donations' from those very countries.

    For sure though, wearing pink 'PUSSY' hats really helps advance 'women's dignity'

    'feminist' Miley Cyrus certainly knows how to advance 'women's dignity':
    http://images.intouchweekly.com/uploads/posts/image/69834/miley-cyrus.jpg

    And guess what. When they got home afterwards Trump was still President of the US.
    , @Alden
    The women's match was organized and paid for by at least 50 of the George Siros non profits such as move on, BLM etc.
    There were ads on Craig's list promising to pay $2,500. The transportation and hotels were all arranged and paid for by the Soros non profits.

    I believe Soros wants to do to Pres Trump and America what he did in the Arab countries a few years ago.

    This is something thing I have thought about. The well organized hysteria against Trump is unprecedented There was some hysteria against Regean, but not like this.
    So, what were the powers that be planning to do to us if Hildabeast had won?
  28. annamaria says:

    This is an outstanding paper that provides a clear and comprehensive explanation of the current woes of the so-called western world.
    Mr. van Wolferen is rather too charitable towards Obama when explaining Obama’s position as of an “observer.” No, not at all. – Mr. Obama is a pupil of Cheney. We live in a society shaped by Mr. Cheney; Obama policies were directed at maintaining this monstrous shape.
    With regard to Mr. Putin, the most vicious foes of Trump are coming from the Russian Fifth Column. The representatives of the Fifth Column see nothing wrong in Yeltsin regime of looting and destroying Russia, but they cannot forgive Putin the growing strength of Russian Federation (outside of they “guidance”) and, most of all, the loss of stipends that western NGO (skilled in arranging the choler revolutions) used to provide generously to various easily-bought revolutionaries of the Fifth Column.

    Read More
  29. Benoite says:

    Truly a great article! Any chance of a Dutch summary (hapklare brokken) to be published in the Dutch media?

    Thank you Mr. van Wolferen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nils
    Yes,

    Whatch CafeWeltschmerz.nl, theinterview with Niemöller.
  30. utu says:

    The anger and the extreme exasperation of the left comes from realization that Trump (and Putin) demonstrated that the magic spells the left casts on their enemies actually do not work. They lost their magic power. It used to be that if you called somebody a male chauvinist, a homophobe, a racist, an anti-Semite the person would turn into a dust. However Trump (and Putin) are still there.

    Read More
    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "the extreme exasperation of the left" is shared by the the extreme exasperation of the right (see Morell and Kagans uniting for Clinton)
    The list of Republicans for Clinton is rather long and includes such luminaries from Cheney/Bush administration as:
    Colin Powell, secretary of state
    Henry Paulson, treasury secretary
    Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security secretary
    Carlos Gutierrez, commerce secretary
    Rosario Marin, U.S. treasurer
    John Negroponte, director of national intelligence
    Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state
    Brent Scowcroft, chairman of the President's Intelligence Advisory Board ....
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/30/heres-the-growing-list-of-big-name-republicans-supporting-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.4d68a557c497

    This is another evidence of the Obama/Clinton team being joined at the hip with the Cheney/Bush team

  31. utu says:
    @jacques sheete

    We're very pleased to run this provocative new piece
     
    Finding it necessary to introduce this fine article as provocative sez a lot about the gullibility extant.

    I really did not get. Why the introduction? By unz.com standards it is not that provocative.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ron Unz

    I really did not get. Why the introduction? By unz.com standards it is not that provocative.
     
    I'm very pleased that this fine piece has been getting the strong traffic and positive comments it certainly deserved.

    However, I also noticed there had also been considerable analysis of my use of the word "provocative" in the short editorial introduction. I'm afraid there's far less here than people are considering.

    I'm *totally* preoccupied with my software work right now. But since it had been a year or two since Karel had published anything here, I decided to take thirty seconds to add a casual introductory sentence emphasizing his journalistic stature, and the precise words I happened to use were hardly the product of deep introspection.

    My apologies for diverting attention to unimportant side issues, but I'm hoping people will be understanding once I finally release my new software system.
  32. @godfree roberts
    "Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes."

    Really? Can you provide a quote and link to substantiate this claim?

    Do a Google search of “Chomsky and 9/11″ and you will see that Chomsky belittles people who questions the official “truth” about 9/11. Below is just one link to a presentation he makes at a university. He has a similar position on the Israeli lobby. He discounts and denies the lobby’s strength and control over Congress and U.S. policies. He actually believes that it is the U.S. that is in control and uses Israel for its own benefit, a surreal view for someone who is so very well informed. But not a surprising perspective for a Zionist.

    https://www.rt.com/usa/noam-chomsky-911-truthers-342/

    Read More
  33. utu says:
    @AaronB
    There is something timeless and inevitable about all this.

    Once you grasp how human societies really work, what a fraud power and position are, the only intelligent thing is to become a monk, or a hermit.

    Or, if you aren't religiously minded, a careless hedonist.

    And yet there are people who, once they understand how empty status is, how much based on fraud and illusion, are inspired even more to play the game of power. These people I cannot understand. I cannot understand seeing through the illusions of social power and thinking - yes, this is how I want to live the rest of my days, playing out an illusion.

    The problem is, the only way to win the power-game is to use dirty methods. You have no choice but to use the weapons of your opponents, as the alt-right has discovered. By now, everyone knows how the alt-right consciously models itself on the tactics of the left.

    But means are not neutral, and tactics have a way of transforming you from within. So the alt-right, soon enough, will find that to truly gain and keep power, it will have to really become, in its inmost being, just like the left - shutting down debate, using intimidation and mockery, and all the rest. These means can never be dispensed with ,and as the alt-right becomes a new power-center it will attract people who care nothing for alt-right values and are only out for power, and the alt-right will be transformed from within, just as the left was. Taboos will be different, the boundaries of permitted discourse will shift, but soon, what is morally permitted will begin to display a remarkable coincidence with the selfish interest of people in power.

    This is the fate of all revolutions, and the eternal farce of politics.

    And yet, there is a way out, if we wanted to take it.

    “Taboos will be different, the boundaries of permitted discourse will shift, but soon, what is morally permitted will begin to display a remarkable coincidence with the selfish interest of people in power.”

    It is sad that such an outcome seems to be inevitable. So what is left there to do? Withdraw and tend your own garden like Voltaire’s Candide? Or prepare for a new fight?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Daniel Chieh
    After the collapse, which is very possible, at least there will be a lot less hypocrisy about the need for power for its own sake. Then again, they probably will posit some virtue too. Such is life.
    , @RadicalCenter
    We will not be ALLOWED to withdraw. The government and its lackeys in the media, corporate, and academic world demand, ever more intrusively, that we affirmatively say and do "the right things" and raise our children to accept whatever drivel they are "taught."

    They will not leave your property alone.
    They will not leave your guns and ability to defend your family intact.
    They will not stop mocking us and brainwashing our children.

    Nobody with children can withdraw from politics or society. We must vote, speak out, demonstrate, and fight lawfully in defense of self and others when necessary.
    , @AaronB
    Well, in some fashion the only sane option is to disengage from politics and the "world", to not participate in a system that can never yield results, but can only recycle elites as values are inevitably co-opted by the power-hungry.

    The problem of co-optation is what makes it a farce. For instance, spiritual practices designed for the purpose of reducing ego and concern with success, like zen meditation, get co-opted by people obsessed with success as just one more method helping them work better. This happens to all large-scale social activities.

    It's also why all spiritual traditions are hopeless about the "world" and recommend some kind of disengagement from it. Because the situation really is hopeless. The system feeds off of our participation. The only way to weaken it is to withdraw. If you "fight", you are perpetuating and strengthening the system. In the end, "fighting" strengthens the power hungry elements just as much as "submitting" - "fighting" appears to transfer power, but in reality only recycles elites. It never produces lasting change. Its a paradox, but the only way to "fight" evil is to stop fighting. There is a third way - neither fight nor submit. It's a false dichotomy that sees those two as the only options. A deeper perspective sees that fighting and submitting are actually both manifestations of the same impulse.

    Its why Jesus told us not to resist evil, and the Buddha said hate never ceases by hate, and why Nietzsche warned us that if we stare into abysses, abysses back stare into us, and we become monsters. The point is - you become what you fight. Its an old an inevitable law.

    This is a fine article, and it's useful to point out the carnival like nature of the political shadow theater, but while most people here probably see it as a call to action, I see it as a launching pad to disengagement.
  34. @Realist
    Karl Rove, helped elect one of the dumbest bastards to the office of President of The United States.

    Karl Rove, helped elect one of the dumbest bastards to the office of President of The United States.

    Rove, Cheney and the neocons needed a president dumb enough never to figure out what they were up to. Enter Curious George …

    Read More
    • Replies: @Realist
    "Rove, Cheney and the neocons needed a president dumb enough never to figure out what they were up to."

    Well they did a good job, GWB is a stupid shit.
  35. @ Carleton Meyer: …..Thank you for posting the Pelosi video…

    Excellent find….the LIES mount ever higher…there’s been NO difference between Ds & Rs….hasn’t been in decades….fraudulence….I’m mad as hell ~~!!

    Read More
  36. @anon1

    The presentation of ‘almost definitive’ findings by the joint investigation team under Dutch leadership has neither included clues supplied by jet fighter cannon holes in the wrecked fuselage nor eyewitness stories, which would make the government in Kiev the prime suspect. Moscow’s challenging the integrity of the investigation, whose agreed-upon rules included publication of findings only if Kiev agreed with them, were met with great indignation by the Dutch Foreign and Prime Ministers.
     
    LOL. Still clinging to the jet fighter theory? Even the Russian trolls and propaganda websites now agree it was a SAM that shot MH17 down, they just claim it was the Ukranians that fired it. -1 for KVW.

    Even the Russian trolls and propaganda websites now agree it was a SAM that shot MH17 down, they just claim it was the Ukranians that fired it.

    No, the jet theory is still making the rounds on the internet. To date, nobody has produced any satellite evidence that there was even a BUK-launch that day. However, radar from the Rostov-on-Don airport did show that MH17 was being shadowed by at least one other aircraft. So the mystery continues …

    Read More
  37. Thirdeye says:
    @Carlton Meyer
    I just discovered the "Jimmy Dore" show on youtube. He seems like a profane oddball, but is a brilliant Sandersest progressive who speaks the truth. Watch as he demolishes failed Democrat leader Nancy Pelosi, and watch other clips as he dismantles the corrupt Democratic party.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HjXFh0qBCw

    Thanks for that.

    Read More
  38. @jacques sheete
    Superb article.

    If you are a journalist and depend for your income on a mainstream newspaper or are hired by a TV company, you run the risk of losing your job if you do not engage in self-censorship.

     

    It’s much worse than that. If you refuse to play the game you can wind up maimed for life or killed.

    Repetition lends an ever greater aura of truth to the nonsense that is relentlessly repeated on the pages of once serious publications.

    The realities Rove predicted have infantilized parliamentary debates, current affairs discussion and lecture events, and anything of a supposedly serious nature on TV. These now conform to comic book simplicities of evil, heroes and baddies.
     

    Yes and yes. For textbook examples of "comic book simplicities of evil," look no further than WW2 propaganda. 75 years later, most people still seem to believe most of it. People must learn to question "authority" and boycott all sources of lies. (I can dream, can’t I?)

    We all owe thanks to writers of Internet-based samizdat literature who’ve recently reminded us that the pejorative use of the conspiracy label stems from one of the greatest misinformation successes of the CIA begun in 1967.
     
    Bingo.

    So the campaign to make journalists feel guilty for their embarrassing questions dates from before Dick Cheney and Rove and Bush...


    Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes.

     

    Yes, the Marxists had fine tuned the tactic of ridiculing and mocking even before WW1. It was quite characteristic of Saint Karl’s rantings in fact, and I’ve found that it’s usually pretty easy to detect Zionists, modern day Marxists, neocons and a lot of other liars by their consistent use of those approaches. The more stridently they mock and ridicule the more likely it is that they’re lying it seems.

    “And I ridiculed the whole business of intelligence, because that’s the best way to get on with it-ridicule and belittle ourselves, and say what an awful lot of duffers we are, can’t get the facts straight, that sort of thing.”

    -Noel Coward, as quoted in “A Man Called Intrepid” by William Stevenson, 1976. Page 199.

     

    It’s much worse than that. If you refuse to play the game you can wind up maimed for life or killed.

    Yup. Consider the case of Seth Rich, who was killed for leaking the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Obviously everyone who is killed in Washington DC is the victim of a political conspiracy. Because DC is such a safe city.

    While you're at it, do you have a conspiracy-tale about this murder in DC?

    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Connecticut-Congressional-Aide-Intern-Killed-Metro-Subway-DC-Washington-Kevin-Sutherland-Jim-Himes-311729741.html

    How does it fit into the web?
    , @jacques sheete
    Yes. There are many many cases that we know about, and many that we should, but don't.
  39. @Yak-15
    "Fighter cannon holes."

    Fighters use explosive ammunition that are coupled with proximity fuses. No such cannon holes would exist if a fighter shot it's weapon because the shells detonate before impact.

    In fact, the pieces of wreckage of the downed jet liner showed signs of a designed shrapnel load present in a air defense missile. Those are the shotgun type holes seen in some of the pieces of plane.

    Perhaps the Russians did not shoot the plane down. But an auto cannon from a fighter jet definitely did not do it.

    Furthermore, the amount of shells it would take to down a large civilian jetliner like the 777 would like exceed the ammunition capacity of most jet fighters unless the pilot's aim perfectly took out both engines.(160 rds, half of which are likely to miss due to aiming error, malfunction and windage).

    Furthermore, the amount of shells it would take to down a large civilian jetliner like the 777 would like exceed the ammunition capacity of most jet fighters unless the pilot’s aim perfectly took out both engines.

    If you follow the fighter-jet theory, the purpose of the machine-gun fire was to kill the pilots immediately, so that they would not be able to radio anybody once the air-to-air missile struck the fuselage. It was the latter that probably brought down the plane.

    Read More
  40. Thirdeye says:
    @Yak-15
    "Fighter cannon holes."

    Fighters use explosive ammunition that are coupled with proximity fuses. No such cannon holes would exist if a fighter shot it's weapon because the shells detonate before impact.

    In fact, the pieces of wreckage of the downed jet liner showed signs of a designed shrapnel load present in a air defense missile. Those are the shotgun type holes seen in some of the pieces of plane.

    Perhaps the Russians did not shoot the plane down. But an auto cannon from a fighter jet definitely did not do it.

    Furthermore, the amount of shells it would take to down a large civilian jetliner like the 777 would like exceed the ammunition capacity of most jet fighters unless the pilot's aim perfectly took out both engines.(160 rds, half of which are likely to miss due to aiming error, malfunction and windage).

    Agree, especially since the 777 was flying at the limit of the Su-24′s envelope and it would have been next to impossible to close the range enough in a climbing tail chase. The significance of the Su-24 was that it proved that Kiev was lying when they claimed that they were not conducting air operations in the area. That’s why the air traffic control radar data were suppressed.

    This started out as a good article until Wolferen started going into la-la-land with the discredited aerial shoot-down theory and the 9/11 “truth” nonsense.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    This started out as a good article until Wolferen started going into la-la-land with the discredited aerial shoot-down theory and the 9/11 “truth” nonsense.
     
    That and this gem:

    – pass off as a popular revolution the coup d’état they fomented in the Ukraine
     
    A "coup d-etat" with 100,000s of participants, supported by the same political parties that had won the popular vote in the most recent national election, with the approval of a strong plurality of the population, bringing to power not some general or military junta, but the same political parties that had won the popular vote in that election.

    I notice that von Wolferen's credentials are focused on Japan. Perhaps he should stick to what he knows, rather than look foolish.
  41. woodNfish says:
    @Anonymous

    Every time people are made to take off their belts and shoes – to stick only to the least inane instances – they are reminded: yes, we can do this to you! Half of Boston or all of France can be placed under undeclared martial law to tell people: yes, we have you under full control!
     
    The Womens (so-called) Protest raised "Yes, we can do this to you . . . Yes, we have you under full control" to another level: masses of women made and wore pink horns, voluntarily signifying that they had approved of the desecrating activities of a profane group of Russian vandals.

    And that they endorse cuckolding their fathers, husbands, brothers.

    Those hats are horns, the horns of a cuckold.

    Those women willingly and gleefully self-controlled to cuckold the male of the species.

    The women's protest rally was an international celebration of emasculation.

    http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/

    Make sure you are looking at Monday’s (1.23.17) entry.

    Read More
  42. The presentation of ‘almost definitive’ findings by the joint investigation team under Dutch leadership has neither included clues supplied by jet fighter cannon holes in the wrecked fuselage nor eyewitness stories, which would make the government in Kiev the prime suspect.

    I didn’t read anything past this. Ukraine had nothing to gain from the shootdown. Russia, OTOH, had everything to gain by doing it and trying to pin it on Ukraine. The investigation didn’t show what you wanted to show. Too bad.

    Russia did it with a model the Buk missile that was never sold to Ukraine. The fighter that you idiots like to claim shot the Boeing down could get up to the cruising altitude where the airliner was flying. These things were pointed out time and again, yet you idiots just can’t absorb the facts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hobo

    Ukraine had nothing to gain from the shootdown
     
    But the scumbag oligarch Kolomoisky certainly did. The same Kolomoisky who funded and controlled the neo-Nazis; the same Kolomoisky who controlled the airport (Dnipropetrovsk) from which the order for flight diversion was issued;; the same Kolomoisky who scuttled a ceasefire accepted by Poroshenko; the same Kolomoisky who had vast interests in eastern Ukraine designated for resource exploitation; the same Kolomoisky whose empire was under attack by Yanukovich’s ‘family’; and finally the same Kolomoisky who had access to that specific model of Buk missile via his Georgian connections which also provided mercenaries and armaments for his neo-Nazi brigades.

    Perhaps its not as simple as a binary choice between Russia and Ukraine.
  43. woodNfish says:

    What I find more difficult to stomach is the position of someone who is worshiped by what used to be the left…

    Anyone who thinks the Left has ever been the savior or harbinger of truth and justice is an idiot and a fool. Leftists are commies and the only good commie is a dead commie.

    Read More
  44. Anon says: • Disclaimer

    This article is the reason why the Unz Review has been my daily read for years. Stunning courage and honesty.
    Thank you Professor van Wolferen and Dr. Unz!

    Read More
  45. Kent says:

    This guy is still around somewhere. Amazing!!

    “How can anyone quarrel with Rove’s prophecy. He told Suskind that we will forever be studying newly created realities. This is what the mainstream media continue to do. His words made it very clear: you have no choice!”

    Kent

    Read More
  46. Realist says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    Karl Rove, helped elect one of the dumbest bastards to the office of President of The United States.
     
    Rove, Cheney and the neocons needed a president dumb enough never to figure out what they were up to. Enter Curious George ...

    “Rove, Cheney and the neocons needed a president dumb enough never to figure out what they were up to.”

    Well they did a good job, GWB is a stupid shit.

    Read More
    • Replies: @nsa
    Bush may be a tard......but there is no denying his extreme courage. When he fell off his bicycle, he didn't just lie there sucking his thumb and screaming for mommy! Certainly not! He got right back up and remounted his bicycle with no help from the secret service. What a man!
  47. @utu
    "Taboos will be different, the boundaries of permitted discourse will shift, but soon, what is morally permitted will begin to display a remarkable coincidence with the selfish interest of people in power."

    It is sad that such an outcome seems to be inevitable. So what is left there to do? Withdraw and tend your own garden like Voltaire's Candide? Or prepare for a new fight?

    After the collapse, which is very possible, at least there will be a lot less hypocrisy about the need for power for its own sake. Then again, they probably will posit some virtue too. Such is life.

    Read More
  48. Mario64 says:

    Prof. Van Wolferen,
    it looks like you have never read Walter Lippmann’s work, political science’s milestones Public Opinion and Phantom Public. He made very clear that any political power, either democracy or tyranny, stands on the bedrock of MANUFACTURING CONSENT.

    The real question that should be asked is why that happens and always happened. The answer is that it takes two to tango and for what concerns public awareness about politics “…The public will arrive in the middle of the third act and will leave before the last curtain, having stayed just long enough perhaps to decide who is the hero and who the villain of the piece. Yet usually that judgment will necessarily be made apart from the intrinsic merits, on the basis of a sample of behavior, an aspect of a situation, by very rough external evidence…” (The Phantom Public)

    Spin doctors’ success is made possible thanks to the public’s inherent complicity.
    What is modern propaganda? For many, it is the lies of a totalitarian state. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl and asked her about her epic films that glorified the Nazis. Using revolutionary camera and lighting techniques, she produced a documentary form that mesmerized Germans; her “Triumph of the Will” cast Hitler’s spell.
    She told me that the “messages” of her films were dependent not on “orders from above”, but on the “submissive void” of the German public. Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? “Everyone,” she said.
    ” (John Pilger – New Statesman – March 14th 2013) http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2013/03/new-propaganda-liberal-new-slavery-digital

    Manufacturing consent in order to be effective needs what Étienne de La Boétie in his “Discours de la servitude volontaire” (Discourse on Voluntary Servitude) defines as the “… secret de toute domination: faire participer les dominés à leur domination” (…the secret of all domination: to make the dominated participate to their own domination).

    But even when “destabilizing truth” comes out, look at what is the reaction of the public.
    On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.” Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame. She criticized Stahl’s segment as “amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda”; said that her question was a loaded question;[63][64] wrote “I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean”;[65] and regretted coming “across as cold-blooded and cruel”.[66] The segment won an Emmy Award.[45][67] Albright’s “non-denial” was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties.[57][63](Wikipedia)

    Did such blood curdling admission aired on a widely attended transmission as CBS’ 60 Minutes move the American public opinion of an inch? Did it prevent American public from endorsing “twice” such genocidal war criminals as Clinton, Bush and Obama? Did it prevent 30 years of killing of and misery for millions of human beings, most of them children, women and innocent civilians?

    The answer is that the public is guilty as much as the rulers. Wasn’t the German public guilty as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history? (Karl Jasper, La culpabilté allemand, Paris, Édition de Minuit, 1948 and Primo Levi, Le Naufrage et Les Rescapés. Quarante ans après Auschwitz. Paris, Gallimard 1989).
    Weren’t the ancient Ahenians, widely considered as the most outstanding example of freedom and participatory politics, guilty for the genocide of the Melians? (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War , book 5, chapters 84–116)

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus

    Wasn’t the German public guilty as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history?
     
    OK.

    The plot seems to be to remind the Polity that they have an obligation to know what their government is doing in their name.

    Polities have a responsibility to suss out the facts of situations rather than be manipulated into giving "manufactured consent."

    Restated: the public has an obligation to demand the truth, to examine it critically, and to base life-and-death decisions upon critically examined truths.

    Therefore, please support, with evidence as momentous as the claim, the assertion that "Germans/Hitler . . . committed unspeakable crimes . . . [and] implemented the greatest carnage ever in human history."

    If you cannot or do not provide evidence and critical analysis to support the claim that " the German public [and] Hitler [committed] unspeakable crimes . . . in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history," then you are committing the very act that is being argued against.

    That should trouble you.

    Because you rely on that sop, that self-righteous declaration, "the German public [and] Hitler [committed] unspeakable crimes . . . in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history;" and because you have completely escaped accountability for Allied participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity in that self-same war, and against the German people themselves, you are able to ease your conscience:

    "The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector." -Luke 18, 11

    You are justified to kill with abandon, because you are not a sinner like those Germans.
    You are the good guys.


    For Americans the never ending war waged by their own government, which leaves them with no choice but to condone mass murder, is supposedly necessary to keep them safe.
     
    Support your charge against the German people.
    Or look at your own self/nation in a mirror.
    Or both.
    , @Alden
    Hitler was not elected. The office of chancellor which he held was not an elected office.
    According to the constitution of the time only the President was elected. Hindenburg was elected President. According to the constitution at the time, the President appointed Hitler as chancellor.

    The German political parties were similar to America's. The 2 major parties had about 90 percent of the vote. The rest of the votes were divided between 3 or 4 minor parties. The NAZI party was one of those minor parties that had a miniscule number of votes.
    , @jacques sheete

    Wasn’t the German public guilty as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history? ?
     
    No. Germany at that time faced the twin threats of Bolshevism and the thoroughly corrupt and degenerate British empire.

    Hard to believe that given Lenin and Stalin's crimes and US and Brit support for them that the German public guilty were as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history.

    75 years later and people still parrot old Brit and Bolshie propaganda. Amazing.

    “You protest, and with justice, each time Hitler jails an opponent; but you forget that Stalin and company have jailed and murdered a thousand times as many. It seems to me, and indeed the evidence is plain, that compared to the Moscow brigands and assassins, Hitler is hardly more than a common Ku Kluxer and Mussolini almost a philanthropist.”

    - H. L. Mencken, in an open letter to Upton Sinclair, printed in The American Mercury, June 1936
     

    “Revisionism as applied to World War II and its origins (as also for previous wars) has the general function of bringing historical truth to an American and a world public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.

    The least of the lessons that revisionism can teach has already been thoroughly learned ( ed: by a select few): that Germany and Japan are not uniquely "aggressor nations," doomed from birth to menace the peace of the world. The larger lessons have, unfortunately, yet to be learned.”

    Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler's Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Times, 1966. Note: This gentleman was also Jewish.
    http://mises.org/daily/2592
     
    , @SolontoCroesus
    On closer reading, Mario64, it appears you've not given much thought to the quotes in your cut-and-paste assemblage.

    Pilger seems like he would be a sound source, he's published on Unz, after all, and he's reliably lefty (I guess; I really have little clue what those terms mean anymore).
    But look at the content and context of the Pilger quote, and apply it to the actual film he's discussing: I see a mismatch, perhaps the result of Hitler Derangement Syndrome,© or ascribable to the fact that Pilger is British and inclined to defend the Muthah country, right or wrong.

    IMDb -- not exactly a skinhead operation -- said this in a synopsis of the 13 segments of "Triumph of the Will"


    "Hitler gives a speech closing the proceedings. This speech, just like all the others documented, have no programs or explanations but are designed to
    create enthusiasm for a new Germany,
    united,
    that can do extraordinary things,
    that can solve problems and
    build for a better future,
    where the ordinary worker is treated with dignity, and
    all are motivated by patriotic love for the German nation. "
     
    To be sure, elsewhere on IMDb "Triumph" is described as "sinister" and "chilling;" "propaganda . . .demonstrating "how the Nazi state drew in the masses through propaganda and also how Adolf Hitler had a unique and terrifying ability to entice crowds to his beliefs by the very power of his words."

    All of this, these contrapuntal viewpoints, are described by Riefenstahl as emerging from an effort that was NOT dictated by Hitler (contrary to the claims of those who credited Hitler's rhetoric), but were imbibed as a result of "the submissive void of the German public."

    In other words, the German people in Nuremberg in 1934 took themselves to their homes at day's end, sang patriotic songs; rose at dawn to quiet streets; attended apparently non-violent rallies in newly-built, very large stadiums; raised young men who camped in tents and went about their work with smiling faces; mothers gave flowers to Hitler as their held their children -- all spontaneous emanations of the "submissive void of the German people."

    Where there had been rampant prostitution, poverty and mob violence during the Weimar years, now, according to Riefenstahl in 1934, there arose from the "submissive void of the German people" orderliness, hopefulness, community cohesion, industriousness and a sense of gratitude.

    Sinister indeed.

    In contrast, as Dr. Michael Jones has detailed in numerous speeches and writing, there exists a "revolutionary spirit" that uses sexual degradation to undermine the moral character of a people, with the goal of more easily exercising control and dominance over that people.
    In this system it must be observed that the compromising force comes from without rather than from within the "submissive void" of the target people.
    Once compromised in this way, the intrusive, demoralizing force imposes its agenda, which usually includes seduction of the populace to consumerism and attendant capitalist (usurious) borrowing to pay for previously unneeded "wants." In "Capturing the German Eye," Cora Sol Goldstein describes just such a "democracy-enforcing" regimen, which Goldstein concedes was carried out through "brutal and undemocratic means."

    No such program is apparent in Riefenstahl's "Triumph."

    The debauching program described by Jones occasionally is enforced with violent means. Just such a program -- termed by its managers "psychological warfare" -- was carried out against the German people for three- to five years after Germany surrendered. During that period, Allied forces maintained a "monopoly on violence;" -- Germans lived under constant existential threat.
    In contrast to the scenarios in "Triumph," German people were deprived of the most basic shelter, and permitted amounts of food insufficient to sustain even an inactive adult. To make up the deficit, women, men and children once again were forced to prostitute themselves. Thus, under control of US forces, the German people found themselves back in the same degraded state as they had successfully dug themselves out of under National Socialism.

    In short, it appears the "submissive void" of the German people had a lot more going for it; and was far more peaceful, civilized and productive, than the violently enforced imposition of "democracy, capitalism, and consumerism" that first, used sexual demoralization to 'soften up' a people, the better to carry out "the secret of all domination: to make the dominated participate to their own domination."

    Finally, which scenario -- the one that Riefenstahl describes in "Triumph of the Will" or the one theorized by Michael Jones and applied as described by Cora Sol Goldstein, more closely fits the situation of American people relative to Madeleine Albright's answer to Leslie Stahl.

    Specifically,


    Did such blood curdling admission aired on a widely attended transmission as CBS’ 60 Minutes move the American public opinion of an inch? Did it prevent American public from endorsing “twice” such genocidal war criminals as Clinton, Bush and Obama? Did it prevent 30 years of killing of and misery for millions of human beings, most of them children, women and innocent civilians?

    The answer is that the public is guilty as much as the rulers.
     

    Incomprehensibly, you leap from that question to a condemnation of the German people.

    I say incomprehensibly because, as the world knows, German leaders and the German people have been punished and punished and punished again, many times for crimes they did not commit but were convicted of ex post facto charges, in kangaroo courts, after being tortured, based on falsified evidence; while no American or Allied or "Coalition of the Willing" leader or foot soldier has been called to account, either for crimes committed flagrantly and deliberately against the German people in WWII, nor in the events Madeleine Albright claims she was "tricked" into admitting.

    I submit that the fraudulent holocaust narrative has provided a smoke screen behind which the US -- and Jews, and Anglos -- hide, to evade accountability for their egregious crimes against humanity. And it is precisely the seeming impunity those groups enjoy as a result of enforcing -- under threat of criminal prosecution -- that outrageously false narrative that empowers them to commit more and more of the same heinous crimes against humanity.

    For that reason, I submit that it is essential to deconstruct the holocaust narrative; bring to justice Americans, Anglos and Jews who have committed these crimes; require that they make reparations and repent of their evil deeds.

    There is no other way.

    The German people have paid their debt and far in excess. They deserve -- they demand -- return to their rightful place as a model among the nations.

  49. annamaria says:
    @utu
    The anger and the extreme exasperation of the left comes from realization that Trump (and Putin) demonstrated that the magic spells the left casts on their enemies actually do not work. They lost their magic power. It used to be that if you called somebody a male chauvinist, a homophobe, a racist, an anti-Semite the person would turn into a dust. However Trump (and Putin) are still there.

    “the extreme exasperation of the left” is shared by the the extreme exasperation of the right (see Morell and Kagans uniting for Clinton)
    The list of Republicans for Clinton is rather long and includes such luminaries from Cheney/Bush administration as:
    Colin Powell, secretary of state
    Henry Paulson, treasury secretary
    Michael Chertoff, Homeland Security secretary
    Carlos Gutierrez, commerce secretary
    Rosario Marin, U.S. treasurer
    John Negroponte, director of national intelligence
    Richard Armitage, deputy secretary of state
    Brent Scowcroft, chairman of the President’s Intelligence Advisory Board ….

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/30/heres-the-growing-list-of-big-name-republicans-supporting-hillary-clinton/?utm_term=.4d68a557c497

    This is another evidence of the Obama/Clinton team being joined at the hip with the Cheney/Bush team

    Read More
  50. edNels says:
    @jacques sheete

    We're very pleased to run this provocative new piece
     
    Finding it necessary to introduce this fine article as provocative sez a lot about the gullibility extant.

    “We’re very pleased to run this provocative new piece…”

    __________________

    Finding it necessary to introduce this fine article as provocative sez a lot about…]

    I think the intro was intended to be humorous,

    and will also stand in for a disclaimer, distancing device: That is the joke! apropos the content of the article which includes several instances of the ironic refusal to discuss certain off limits topics by a couple of the days reputedly most outspoken media critics, Chomsky and A. Coburn, etc.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jacques sheete

    I think the intro was intended to be humorous...
     
    Even if it was, my assertion remains valid!
  51. annamaria says:
    @anon1

    The presentation of ‘almost definitive’ findings by the joint investigation team under Dutch leadership has neither included clues supplied by jet fighter cannon holes in the wrecked fuselage nor eyewitness stories, which would make the government in Kiev the prime suspect. Moscow’s challenging the integrity of the investigation, whose agreed-upon rules included publication of findings only if Kiev agreed with them, were met with great indignation by the Dutch Foreign and Prime Ministers.
     
    LOL. Still clinging to the jet fighter theory? Even the Russian trolls and propaganda websites now agree it was a SAM that shot MH17 down, they just claim it was the Ukranians that fired it. -1 for KVW.

    You mean that the US has finally provided the satellite images collected continuously over the “location of interest?’ If not, then your assessment is either a product of ignorance or a malicious lie.

    Read More
  52. AP says:
    @Thirdeye
    Agree, especially since the 777 was flying at the limit of the Su-24's envelope and it would have been next to impossible to close the range enough in a climbing tail chase. The significance of the Su-24 was that it proved that Kiev was lying when they claimed that they were not conducting air operations in the area. That's why the air traffic control radar data were suppressed.

    This started out as a good article until Wolferen started going into la-la-land with the discredited aerial shoot-down theory and the 9/11 "truth" nonsense.

    This started out as a good article until Wolferen started going into la-la-land with the discredited aerial shoot-down theory and the 9/11 “truth” nonsense.

    That and this gem:

    – pass off as a popular revolution the coup d’état they fomented in the Ukraine

    A “coup d-etat” with 100,000s of participants, supported by the same political parties that had won the popular vote in the most recent national election, with the approval of a strong plurality of the population, bringing to power not some general or military junta, but the same political parties that had won the popular vote in that election.

    I notice that von Wolferen’s credentials are focused on Japan. Perhaps he should stick to what he knows, rather than look foolish.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    If the popular moment was as strong as you describe, then why the martyrs of the "heavenly hundred" and the civil war, just two months before the legitimate election? It seems that you are unaware of Brennan's visit to Kiev on the eve of the civili war. In case you do not know, Mr. Brennan is a former Director of CIA. http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/30477
    There were a lot of courageous and principled protesters in Kiev in 2014, but their movement was co-opted and corrupted by the usual suspects skilled in "choler" revolutions. The results of the coup d'etat are catastrophic for Ukraine's economy. As for the morale... "Poroshenko's public approval rating, after winning the presidency with 55% of the vote in 2014, is now 6.4% according to pollsters at Rating." http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/10/14/how-corruption-corrodes-ukraines-economy/#3960029767cf
    , @annamaria
    "As the CIA and the Obama administration tried to stonewall about the explosive reports that CIA director John Brennan had been in Kiev over the weekend to advise "Victoria's Secret Government" there to take military action against opposition forces in the east of the country, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov blew the affair wide open by telling reporters today:
    "We would like to understand what reports about the CIA Director Mr. Brennan's urgent trip to Kiev could mean...." In addition to Russian media accounts of Brennan's provocative mission, deposed Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych charged that Brennan had indeed met with Ukraine's new leadership and "in fact sanctioned the use of weapons and provoked bloodshed," and that with this "Ukraine made the first step toward civil war..."
    Lavrov: "The decision to apply military force is an extremely dangerous development. Those who encourage such actions in Kiev should be held responsible to the full extent."
    http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/30477
    Perhaps you should think hard about the "heavenly hundred" in the context of Kolomojsky, Yats, Bidens, and the Kagans' clan.
    , @annamaria
    Ukraine was used as a sacrifice for the imperial interests:
    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/01/23/lost-hegemon-reviewed-david-ray-griffin/
  53. annamaria says:
    @Che Guava
    I finished reading your article, Mr. van Wolferen, it is a good piece!

    Would posit that Russian mass-media is among the world leaders for truth, much in eastern Asia (at least Japan and China) has the aim of making people stupid in terms of political thought.

    Sth. Korea is an exception to an extent, this is part of the reason for the fall of Pres. Park II.

    In western Europe and the USA, it is usually for change that is inimical to most readers.

    The Guardian is particularly despicable. It has the strangest of political lines, and, most ironically, is calling its comments 'Comment is Free'. It seems that was a slogan of a long-ago chief editor or publisher.

    Any comment that is slightly deviating from the lines (they are having various) of the Guardianistas will being deleted, and harassment of all posts will follow. They are sometimes allowing comments, but never when they are frightened of a pointed contradiction. Sure, a *few* of their *no comments evar* articles are because they are on legal cases, but such *no comments* articles are about 10% of articles where they don't open comments. For most, it is because the staff writer is saying something stupid that they don't want contradicted. Totalitarian, indeed.

    The Times, (the British one, the others are all later and the NYT is particularly irritating to try to claim that title), from my reading of old quotes and articles, it once reflected the opinions of particular factions of the Brit. ruling class, one of our Sunday papers used to run a supplement from it, so was able to see it now, used to buy the Sunday edition mainly for that, for language study and laughing at the stupidity. It is a cheap-propaganda-filled tabloid now.

    “The Guardian is particularly despicable.”
    Agree. A scoundrel usurped the name of a virtuous person and this makes everybody wonder why the formerly reliable Guardian has been publishing propaganda trash. And it is true that the Guardian’ comment section is a perfect censorship machine. The Soviet Union lookout for a dissent on steroids.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    Thanks, annamaria.

    I was going to say their system is imperfect because every thread, even if not controversial, is full of 'This comment was deleted because it violated community standards.' or similar words, but thought a little, and realised that is part of the game.

    The policy of portrait photos of their staff always being a sneer over the left shoulder and down the nose at the reader is quite funny.

    Lately, they have staff post begging comments in the comments threads at times.

    Stopping there, could go on.

    Regards.
    , @James N. Kennett

    "The Guardian is particularly despicable."
    Agree. A scoundrel usurped the name of a virtuous person and this makes everybody wonder why the formerly reliable Guardian has been publishing propaganda trash. And it is true that the Guardian' comment section is a perfect censorship machine. The Soviet Union lookout for a dissent on steroids.
     
    Guardian journalists, like the rest of the British MSM, belong to the "British-American Project", whose role is to demarcate the Overton Window and promote groupthink.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2007/12/pilger-bap-values-british

  54. AP says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    It’s much worse than that. If you refuse to play the game you can wind up maimed for life or killed.
     
    Yup. Consider the case of Seth Rich, who was killed for leaking the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks.

    Obviously everyone who is killed in Washington DC is the victim of a political conspiracy. Because DC is such a safe city.

    While you’re at it, do you have a conspiracy-tale about this murder in DC?

    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Connecticut-Congressional-Aide-Intern-Killed-Metro-Subway-DC-Washington-Kevin-Sutherland-Jim-Himes-311729741.html

    How does it fit into the web?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Obviously everyone who is killed in Washington DC is the victim of a political conspiracy. Because DC is such a safe city.
     
    Well, Rich's murder wasn't a mugging. His cellphone, wallet and Rolex were all found on his body. Oh, and he was shot in the back.
  55. @utu
    "Taboos will be different, the boundaries of permitted discourse will shift, but soon, what is morally permitted will begin to display a remarkable coincidence with the selfish interest of people in power."

    It is sad that such an outcome seems to be inevitable. So what is left there to do? Withdraw and tend your own garden like Voltaire's Candide? Or prepare for a new fight?

    We will not be ALLOWED to withdraw. The government and its lackeys in the media, corporate, and academic world demand, ever more intrusively, that we affirmatively say and do “the right things” and raise our children to accept whatever drivel they are “taught.”

    They will not leave your property alone.
    They will not leave your guns and ability to defend your family intact.
    They will not stop mocking us and brainwashing our children.

    Nobody with children can withdraw from politics or society. We must vote, speak out, demonstrate, and fight lawfully in defense of self and others when necessary.

    Read More
  56. @Mario64
    Prof. Van Wolferen,
    it looks like you have never read Walter Lippmann's work, political science's milestones Public Opinion and Phantom Public. He made very clear that any political power, either democracy or tyranny, stands on the bedrock of MANUFACTURING CONSENT.

    The real question that should be asked is why that happens and always happened. The answer is that it takes two to tango and for what concerns public awareness about politics "...The public will arrive in the middle of the third act and will leave before the last curtain, having stayed just long enough perhaps to decide who is the hero and who the villain of the piece. Yet usually that judgment will necessarily be made apart from the intrinsic merits, on the basis of a sample of behavior, an aspect of a situation, by very rough external evidence…" (The Phantom Public)

    Spin doctors' success is made possible thanks to the public's inherent complicity.
    "What is modern propaganda? For many, it is the lies of a totalitarian state. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl and asked her about her epic films that glorified the Nazis. Using revolutionary camera and lighting techniques, she produced a documentary form that mesmerized Germans; her "Triumph of the Will" cast Hitler’s spell.
    She told me that the “messages” of her films were dependent not on “orders from above”, but on the “submissive void” of the German public. Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? “Everyone,” she said.
    " (John Pilger - New Statesman - March 14th 2013) http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2013/03/new-propaganda-liberal-new-slavery-digital

    Manufacturing consent in order to be effective needs what Étienne de La Boétie in his “Discours de la servitude volontaire” (Discourse on Voluntary Servitude) defines as the “… secret de toute domination: faire participer les dominés à leur domination” (…the secret of all domination: to make the dominated participate to their own domination).

    But even when "destabilizing truth" comes out, look at what is the reaction of the public.
    On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.” Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame. She criticized Stahl’s segment as “amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda”; said that her question was a loaded question;[63][64] wrote “I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean”;[65] and regretted coming “across as cold-blooded and cruel”.[66] The segment won an Emmy Award.[45][67] Albright’s “non-denial” was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties.[57][63](Wikipedia)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE

    Did such blood curdling admission aired on a widely attended transmission as CBS' 60 Minutes move the American public opinion of an inch? Did it prevent American public from endorsing "twice" such genocidal war criminals as Clinton, Bush and Obama? Did it prevent 30 years of killing of and misery for millions of human beings, most of them children, women and innocent civilians?

    The answer is that the public is guilty as much as the rulers. Wasn't the German public guilty as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history? (Karl Jasper, La culpabilté allemand, Paris, Édition de Minuit, 1948 and Primo Levi, Le Naufrage et Les Rescapés. Quarante ans après Auschwitz. Paris, Gallimard 1989).
    Weren't the ancient Ahenians, widely considered as the most outstanding example of freedom and participatory politics, guilty for the genocide of the Melians? (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War , book 5, chapters 84–116)

    Wasn’t the German public guilty as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history?

    OK.

    The plot seems to be to remind the Polity that they have an obligation to know what their government is doing in their name.

    Polities have a responsibility to suss out the facts of situations rather than be manipulated into giving “manufactured consent.”

    Restated: the public has an obligation to demand the truth, to examine it critically, and to base life-and-death decisions upon critically examined truths.

    Therefore, please support, with evidence as momentous as the claim, the assertion that “Germans/Hitler . . . committed unspeakable crimes . . . [and] implemented the greatest carnage ever in human history.”

    If you cannot or do not provide evidence and critical analysis to support the claim that ” the German public [and] Hitler [committed] unspeakable crimes . . . in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history,” then you are committing the very act that is being argued against.

    That should trouble you.

    Because you rely on that sop, that self-righteous declaration, “the German public [and] Hitler [committed] unspeakable crimes . . . in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history;” and because you have completely escaped accountability for Allied participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity in that self-same war, and against the German people themselves, you are able to ease your conscience:

    “The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: ‘God, I thank you that I am not like other people–robbers, evildoers, adulterers–or even like this tax collector.” -Luke 18, 11

    You are justified to kill with abandon, because you are not a sinner like those Germans.
    You are the good guys.

    For Americans the never ending war waged by their own government, which leaves them with no choice but to condone mass murder, is supposedly necessary to keep them safe.

    Support your charge against the German people.
    Or look at your own self/nation in a mirror.
    Or both.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Verymuchalive
    Excellent Riposte.
    Keep up the good work.
    , @Cloak And Dagger
    An excellent comment, SC! Fake News has been around for a long time, and victors have long rewritten history. Who will avenge the victims in Dresden?
  57. […] 2017: To a report that owes its brevity to the coverage of one small current topic, let me add a sweeping evaluation by a Dutch observer of the war of […]

    Read More
  58. annamaria says:
    @AP

    This started out as a good article until Wolferen started going into la-la-land with the discredited aerial shoot-down theory and the 9/11 “truth” nonsense.
     
    That and this gem:

    – pass off as a popular revolution the coup d’état they fomented in the Ukraine
     
    A "coup d-etat" with 100,000s of participants, supported by the same political parties that had won the popular vote in the most recent national election, with the approval of a strong plurality of the population, bringing to power not some general or military junta, but the same political parties that had won the popular vote in that election.

    I notice that von Wolferen's credentials are focused on Japan. Perhaps he should stick to what he knows, rather than look foolish.

    If the popular moment was as strong as you describe, then why the martyrs of the “heavenly hundred” and the civil war, just two months before the legitimate election? It seems that you are unaware of Brennan’s visit to Kiev on the eve of the civili war. In case you do not know, Mr. Brennan is a former Director of CIA. http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/30477
    There were a lot of courageous and principled protesters in Kiev in 2014, but their movement was co-opted and corrupted by the usual suspects skilled in “choler” revolutions. The results of the coup d’etat are catastrophic for Ukraine’s economy. As for the morale… “Poroshenko’s public approval rating, after winning the presidency with 55% of the vote in 2014, is now 6.4% according to pollsters at Rating.” http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/10/14/how-corruption-corrodes-ukraines-economy/#3960029767cf

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    If the popular moment was as strong as you describe, then why the martyrs of the “heavenly hundred” and the civil war just two months before the legitimate election
     
    1. Yanukovich moved up the election as a desperate reaction to the protests. They had been scheduled for a year later.

    2. Nobody believed the election would have been legitimate. General consensus was that the two months would be a window in which to beef up security apparatus/purge those whose loyalty had wavered (so that the election could later be cancelled, or faked and resistance crushed), and/or steal as much as possible in case of an escape.

    It seems that you are unaware of Brennan’s visit to Kiev on the eve of the civili war. In case you do not know, Mr. Brennan is a former Director of CIA
     
    And a French general and thousands of French troops were on US soil during the American Revolution. The American Revolution was ended by the Treaty of Paris.

    It must have been a French coup against the British, not a popular uprising, right?

    Hmm, remind us how many US troops participated in the Ukrainian Revolution?

    There were a lot of courageous and principled protesters in Kiev in 2014, but their movement was co-opted and corrupted
     
    Idealists were indeed replaced by more clever and more ruthless types, who have stifled the progress that had originally been made. This has nothing to do with whether or not what happened in 2013-2014 was a "coup" or a popular uprising.

    As for the morale… “Poroshenko’s public approval rating, after winning the presidency with 55% of the vote in 2014, is now 6.4% according to pollsters at Rating
     
    Yes, other pro-Revolution parties are more popular instead. Poroshenko has disappointed, but if people had regretted the popular revolution then the Opposition Bloc (the political heir of the deposed Party of Regions of Yanukovich ) would have seen a surge in popularity. Hasn't happened.

    In 2013-2014 the western and central parts of Ukraine (half the country) engaged in a popular revolt and overthrew the government, whose support was less enthusiastic and whose supporters were outnumbered and largely limited to the country's southern and eastern fringe, far from the capital. To characterize this as a Western "coup", simply because the West provided support and encouragement, is to demonstrate the lack of credibility of the person describing it as a coup.
  59. Sean says:

    The son of a clergyman, Whately was educated at Oriel College, Oxford, and took holy orders. While at Oxford, he wrote his satiric Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (1819), in which he attacked the stringent application of logic to the Bible by showing that the same methods used to cast doubt on the miracles would also leave the existence of Napoleon open to question.

    Except from Whately’s work:-

    But is it in fact found that undisputed points are always such as have been the most carefully examined as to the evidence on which they rest? that facts or principles which are taken for granted, without controversy, as the common basis of opposite opinions, are always themselves established on sufficient grounds? On the contrary, is not any such fundamental point, from the very circumstance of its being taken for granted at once, and the attention drawn off to some other question, likely to be admitted on insufficient evidence, and the flaws in that evidence overlooked?

    Experience will teach us that such instances often occur: witness the well-known anecdote of the Royal Society; to whom King Charles II. proposed as a question, whence it is that a vessel of water receives no addition of weight from a live fish being put into it, though it does, if the fish be dead. Various solutions, of great ingenuity, were proposed, discussed, objected to, and defended; nor was it till they had been long bewildered in the inquiry, that it occurred to them to try the experiment; by which they at once ascertained that the phenomenon which they were striving to account for,—which was the acknowledged basis and substratum, as it were, of their debates,—had no existence but in the invention of the witty monarch.[1]

    Rove’s prophecy, not long before the election, was Trump couldn’t win, but he did. So who is the great mastermind and shaper of events that others can only watch and wonder at?

    I do freely confess I think there good reason think it more likely that Trump rather than Rove and company orchestrated 9/11. For the Donald has defeated them, and them went on to take the leadership of the country and the right to appoint intelligence agency leadership with no telling how he would use it. They couldn’t stop him, but an American cabal who did 9/11 would stopped him at whatever cost. He is more capable of pulling off a false flag 9/11 than the Neocon and/or their CIA minions.

    You know Bobby Fischer, who maybe was the highest IQ person ever, had all the fillings taken out his teeth to improve his health. The problem was he didn’t have them replaced with anything and his teeth, being open to decay, were attacked and destroyed by bacteria. A hyperlogical high IQ tinfoil hat brigade would denude their country of vital protection from foreign attack, because all countries ceaselessly attack and interfere in others internal affairs, whenever they see a weakness. It is national suicide not to The US did it in Ukraine and the Russians would have surely have attempted it in the presidential election .

    Leaving other countries (like Russia) alone is not an option, because it is easy to know what they might do with an increase in relative power gained in a period of bring left in peace in their own backyard: they’d come for us and try to weaken us.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    I do freely confess I think there good reason think it more likely that Trump rather than Rove and company orchestrated 9/11.
     
    Not Trump, but Likudniks, who supported Trump during the campaign.
    , @CanSpeccy

    You know Bobby Fischer, who maybe was the highest IQ person ever, had all the fillings taken out his teeth to improve his health. The problem was he didn’t have them replaced with anything and his teeth, being open to decay, were attacked and destroyed by bacteria.
     
    LOL. Conclusive evidence that IQ and intelligence have little if any relationship with one another.
  60. annamaria says:
    @AP

    This started out as a good article until Wolferen started going into la-la-land with the discredited aerial shoot-down theory and the 9/11 “truth” nonsense.
     
    That and this gem:

    – pass off as a popular revolution the coup d’état they fomented in the Ukraine
     
    A "coup d-etat" with 100,000s of participants, supported by the same political parties that had won the popular vote in the most recent national election, with the approval of a strong plurality of the population, bringing to power not some general or military junta, but the same political parties that had won the popular vote in that election.

    I notice that von Wolferen's credentials are focused on Japan. Perhaps he should stick to what he knows, rather than look foolish.

    “As the CIA and the Obama administration tried to stonewall about the explosive reports that CIA director John Brennan had been in Kiev over the weekend to advise “Victoria’s Secret Government” there to take military action against opposition forces in the east of the country, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov blew the affair wide open by telling reporters today:
    “We would like to understand what reports about the CIA Director Mr. Brennan’s urgent trip to Kiev could mean….” In addition to Russian media accounts of Brennan’s provocative mission, deposed Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych charged that Brennan had indeed met with Ukraine’s new leadership and “in fact sanctioned the use of weapons and provoked bloodshed,” and that with this “Ukraine made the first step toward civil war…”
    Lavrov: “The decision to apply military force is an extremely dangerous development. Those who encourage such actions in Kiev should be held responsible to the full extent.”

    http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/30477

    Perhaps you should think hard about the “heavenly hundred” in the context of Kolomojsky, Yats, Bidens, and the Kagans’ clan.

    Read More
  61. annamaria says:
    @AP

    This started out as a good article until Wolferen started going into la-la-land with the discredited aerial shoot-down theory and the 9/11 “truth” nonsense.
     
    That and this gem:

    – pass off as a popular revolution the coup d’état they fomented in the Ukraine
     
    A "coup d-etat" with 100,000s of participants, supported by the same political parties that had won the popular vote in the most recent national election, with the approval of a strong plurality of the population, bringing to power not some general or military junta, but the same political parties that had won the popular vote in that election.

    I notice that von Wolferen's credentials are focused on Japan. Perhaps he should stick to what he knows, rather than look foolish.

    Ukraine was used as a sacrifice for the imperial interests:

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2017/01/23/lost-hegemon-reviewed-david-ray-griffin/

    Read More
  62. nsa says:
    @Realist
    "Rove, Cheney and the neocons needed a president dumb enough never to figure out what they were up to."

    Well they did a good job, GWB is a stupid shit.

    Bush may be a tard……but there is no denying his extreme courage. When he fell off his bicycle, he didn’t just lie there sucking his thumb and screaming for mommy! Certainly not! He got right back up and remounted his bicycle with no help from the secret service. What a man!

    Read More
  63. Skeptikal says:
    @jacques sheete

    We're very pleased to run this provocative new piece
     
    Finding it necessary to introduce this fine article as provocative sez a lot about the gullibility extant.

    To me the piece is like drinking nice, clean water.
    Not provocative but confirming of what so many of us know to be true.
    Really great to read.

    The reason for the “provocative” label might be that the author clearly calls out the whole manufactured “conspiracy” meme and clearly implies that wherever the word is used to discredit honest inquiry, that is exactly where the Rove-like trolls managing our public discourse are in fact managing a cover-up. It *is* a brilliant bit of sleight-of-hand.

    Van Wolferen, by putting the conspiracy meme out there on a tray, is making it a bit easier for everyone to examine and dissect and ultimately, it is to be hoped, deconstruct and smash this extremely successful rhetorical stranglehold.

    Read More
  64. @godfree roberts
    "Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes."

    Really? Can you provide a quote and link to substantiate this claim?

    I do not know the writer but this is one of the most important and brilliant articles/essays I have read in a very long time. Regarding Chomsky, if you are looking for well documented evidence of his role in interpreting and controlling responses within the American Left to the Israel-Palestine conflict, here it is, well documented. http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Blankfort0525.htm

    Read More
  65. AP says:
    @annamaria
    If the popular moment was as strong as you describe, then why the martyrs of the "heavenly hundred" and the civil war, just two months before the legitimate election? It seems that you are unaware of Brennan's visit to Kiev on the eve of the civili war. In case you do not know, Mr. Brennan is a former Director of CIA. http://archive.larouchepac.com/node/30477
    There were a lot of courageous and principled protesters in Kiev in 2014, but their movement was co-opted and corrupted by the usual suspects skilled in "choler" revolutions. The results of the coup d'etat are catastrophic for Ukraine's economy. As for the morale... "Poroshenko's public approval rating, after winning the presidency with 55% of the vote in 2014, is now 6.4% according to pollsters at Rating." http://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2016/10/14/how-corruption-corrodes-ukraines-economy/#3960029767cf

    If the popular moment was as strong as you describe, then why the martyrs of the “heavenly hundred” and the civil war just two months before the legitimate election

    1. Yanukovich moved up the election as a desperate reaction to the protests. They had been scheduled for a year later.

    2. Nobody believed the election would have been legitimate. General consensus was that the two months would be a window in which to beef up security apparatus/purge those whose loyalty had wavered (so that the election could later be cancelled, or faked and resistance crushed), and/or steal as much as possible in case of an escape.

    It seems that you are unaware of Brennan’s visit to Kiev on the eve of the civili war. In case you do not know, Mr. Brennan is a former Director of CIA

    And a French general and thousands of French troops were on US soil during the American Revolution. The American Revolution was ended by the Treaty of Paris.

    It must have been a French coup against the British, not a popular uprising, right?

    Hmm, remind us how many US troops participated in the Ukrainian Revolution?

    There were a lot of courageous and principled protesters in Kiev in 2014, but their movement was co-opted and corrupted

    Idealists were indeed replaced by more clever and more ruthless types, who have stifled the progress that had originally been made. This has nothing to do with whether or not what happened in 2013-2014 was a “coup” or a popular uprising.

    As for the morale… “Poroshenko’s public approval rating, after winning the presidency with 55% of the vote in 2014, is now 6.4% according to pollsters at Rating

    Yes, other pro-Revolution parties are more popular instead. Poroshenko has disappointed, but if people had regretted the popular revolution then the Opposition Bloc (the political heir of the deposed Party of Regions of Yanukovich ) would have seen a surge in popularity. Hasn’t happened.

    In 2013-2014 the western and central parts of Ukraine (half the country) engaged in a popular revolt and overthrew the government, whose support was less enthusiastic and whose supporters were outnumbered and largely limited to the country’s southern and eastern fringe, far from the capital. To characterize this as a Western “coup”, simply because the West provided support and encouragement, is to demonstrate the lack of credibility of the person describing it as a coup.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "To characterize this as a Western “coup”, simply because the West provided support and encouragement, is to demonstrate the lack of credibility of the person describing it as a coup."
    You mean Friedman of Stratford? - It seems that he was correct. If the Kievan junta was interested in the well-being of Ukrainians at large, then the barbarity of the Kiev-initiated civil war (immediately after the arrival of Brennan) would not happen. The US is fine with federalism, as well as Switzerland. But for the junta and their handlers this simple solution was unacceptable. Hence the blood and death and the handicapped. Is Ukraine better today? - for the Canadian Russophobes of banderite legacy the answer is "yes." For Ukrainians at large not at all:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/ukraine-needs-russia-nicolai-petro
    Going back to the statement that there was no coup d'etat (that Ukraine was not "handled"). What proud nation would allow a fraudulent American of Ukrainian descent to run its finances? What proud nation would allow a foreigner on a run from his native country to become appointed as a governor of an important region (Odessa?) What the Jewish Community of Ukraine has been thinking about the auto-da-fe of civilians, which was conducted by the thugs on a payroll of a wealthy Jewish man? The Qs multiply and the As are painful.
    The most important point is, the "handled" Kiev was not keen on a bloodless solution to the hard problems. It was "we do not do diplomacy" approach that is so characteristic for the US policies abroad. The ongoing Ukrainian tragedy... Sad.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Nice use of the word "fringe" to influence our emotions.

    Who are you to decide which parts of another country are "fringe"?
  66. Wally says: • Website
    @alexander
    Thank you for a fine article , Mr. Van Wolferen,

    I too recall the statement attributed to Karl Rove.


    There is another word one can use, when the "powers that be "choose to "create their own reality"

    Its called "FRAUD".

    As a matter of fact....it is fraud.

    This systemic fraud .......This "empire of fraud"...... is responsible for liquidating 14.3 trillion dollars of US solvency in a mere 16 years, and may well have lead to the complete collapse of the United States of America.

    Americans now look at all these people...these "Empire of fraud" people....with absolute contempt....They are total failures.

    They are a complete joke.

    They , and their deep state "empire of lies" ....have utterly failed our nation.

    Will they ever be held to account for what they have done ?

    I guess that remains to be seen.

    It’s helps to realize that Chomsky is a rabid, irrational Zionist, supporter of “that shitty little country”.
    see:
    ‘Noam Chomsky says Hitler ruined a good thing’

    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10884

    However, there is no better example of fraud then the impossible ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    The ‘holocau$t’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship.
    Truth doesn’t need protection from scrutiny & free speech.

    Dare to examine the absurd & laughable ‘holocaust’ storyline rationally, logically, scientifically and it falls apart like the house-of-cards that it is.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the ’6,000,000′ lie since at least 1869?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Chomsky is a rabid, irrational Zionist
     
    On what basis do you make this claim?
  67. @Robert Magill

    Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes.
     
    I have been struggling to discern what is going on with Chomsky. It's almost as if we need to call in an exorcist to remove the demons. Is it age? Has his family been threatened? It makes no sense to me.

    Consequently, publications that used to be rightly known as quality newspapers have turned into unreadable rags. The newspaper that was my employer for a couple of decades used to be edited on the premise that its correspondents rather than authorities were always correct in what they were saying.

     

    Until the publishers allowed Bush to insist correspondents be embedded with the very troops they were expected to be impartial in reporting on, as was done in all prior conflicts.


    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Re Chomsky, it has nothing to do with age. He has been playing the same tunes with the same fiddle for some time. Here is what a mutual friend, the late Israeli professor and political analyst, Israel Shahak, had to say about him in 1991:

    Much of what Chomsky tells us is �not controversial� invariably proves to be very much so and particularly when it comes to the relations between Israel and the White House. The late revered Israeli scholar and human rights activist, Professor Israel Shahak, pointed out that Chomsky�s analysis suffers from his:

    [U]ndoubted tendency of demonizing the American presidency and the Executive in general, while ignoring the Legislature, but also from his very mistaken, in my opinion, tendency of assuming that not only the principles but literally everything concerning the American imperialism was laid in detail long ago, in 1944 or about that time, and from then on the policy is, so to say, a follow-up of instructions from a computer.

    This ignores not only the human factor in the US itself but also the completely different nature of the foes and the victims of the US during the last decades. There can be no doubt, in my own opinion, that the actual policies of the US are complex even when they are evil, influenced, as in the case of all other states, by many factors of which AIPAC is one and human stupidity (for which he never allows) is another.

    And finally, this very insightful paragraph:
    But such simplistic theories, backed by his memory and ability to pick isolated examples (sometimes from a long time ago like his stock example of Eisenhower in the case of Israel while ignoring everything else from 1967 on) can appeal to [the] young who look for certainty and also for those who don’t want to [be] engaged in actual work and so find substitute for it in crude and useless display of emotion. [60]

    This was taken from my article of more than a decade ago: “Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict, originally published in Left Curve and now found here: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Blankfort0525.htm

    Read More
    • Replies: @Robert Magill
    What I have been reacting to is the realization that Chomsky like so many of us has limits that are easily exceeded. The election has brought out the shadow in many and Chomsky is no exception. In many ways the near universal catharsis that is now displaying may possibly be revolutionary. It's so interesting that the most vociferous are the women. Their rising was legion throughout much of the developed world. The ladies appear to be in the vanguard as is fitting considering the power and the failures reside with males worldwide. Astounding!

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com
  68. Wally says: • Website
    @Veritatis
    I understand how you can look at it as an "emasculation". However, I as a woman, see the "worldwide protest" as a manipulation of women's best instincts. It is difficult to generalize across nations, but here it goes: women are very much social creatures, we like to be part of a group, if possible find love and nurture in the group or groups we belong to. We often get sentimental about "our group" and want to defend it, even if it is just the book club.
    Whoever organized the protests is -amongst other things- manipulating women to defend the group (all women all over) against the attacker (Trump). It is promoting a false first loyalty, "the sisterhood", against better claims:those of family, neighborhood, country, church.
    In the vacuum of identity in which we live, women (and many men) are looking for meaning in manufactured causes and leadership in the wrong people (Madonna?!)
    Women and men do best when we work towards common goals. Life is not ONLY a struggle for power. We don't have to be angry at each other.

    Indeed, the ‘women’s march’ was nothing more than Rebels Without a Clue.

    53% of all white women voted for Trump.

    62% of non-college degree white women voted for Trump.

    And who did we see at this childish event? The white women who lost, that’s who. So where was their mandated ‘diversity’?

    Yet there was no real issues. Rove vs. Wade is all about taxpayer funding of abortions, not whether women can or cannot get abortions. Their arguments are pure strawman, false.

    Why should US taxpayers be forced to pay for other people’s abortions when those people made their own choice to have sex?

    Of course they won’t discuss the fact that women are legally stoned in Muslim countries, or that women can’t even drive cars in Muslim countries, and the fact that gays are legally executed for being gay in Muslim countries.
    And that Hillary took millions in ‘donations’ from those very countries.

    For sure though, wearing pink ‘PUSSY’ hats really helps advance ‘women’s dignity’

    ‘feminist’ Miley Cyrus certainly knows how to advance ‘women’s dignity’:

    And guess what. When they got home afterwards Trump was still President of the US.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon

    Rove vs. Wade is all about taxpayer funding of abortions, not whether women can or cannot get abortions.
     
    Yeah, no it isn't. What's it like to believe everything you read?
    , @RadicalCenter
    Wally, your abortion comments are not accurate. It's ROE v. Wade, not ROVE. More important, neither Roe nor PPFA v. Casey issued any holding about the "right" to force taxpayers to pay for one's abortion.

    Having said that, I'd like to see the Supreme Court, with a couple new Trump nominees, overrule Roe and Casey and return the whole abortion issue to the States per the Tenth Amendment.

    , @Ryan Cohen

    Why should US taxpayers be forced to pay for other people’s abortions when those people made their own choice to have sex?
     
    Using that logic, why should US taxpayers be forced to pay for other people's treatments for injuries and medications when many of the injuries and problems necessitating medication result from behaviors that people choose to engage in? Many cardiovascular and psychiatric issues result, to a large extent, from people's unwillingness to, e.g., drink less soda, eat fewer burgers, and exercise regularly. Many injuries (e.g., broken bones, burns, alcohol poisoning) result from stupid actions that people choose to make. If you want to make the argument that taxpayer money should not be used for medical procedures for problems that result from choices, then you're going to have to deny coverage for many more procedures than just abortion.
  69. @SolontoCroesus

    Wasn’t the German public guilty as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history?
     
    OK.

    The plot seems to be to remind the Polity that they have an obligation to know what their government is doing in their name.

    Polities have a responsibility to suss out the facts of situations rather than be manipulated into giving "manufactured consent."

    Restated: the public has an obligation to demand the truth, to examine it critically, and to base life-and-death decisions upon critically examined truths.

    Therefore, please support, with evidence as momentous as the claim, the assertion that "Germans/Hitler . . . committed unspeakable crimes . . . [and] implemented the greatest carnage ever in human history."

    If you cannot or do not provide evidence and critical analysis to support the claim that " the German public [and] Hitler [committed] unspeakable crimes . . . in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history," then you are committing the very act that is being argued against.

    That should trouble you.

    Because you rely on that sop, that self-righteous declaration, "the German public [and] Hitler [committed] unspeakable crimes . . . in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history;" and because you have completely escaped accountability for Allied participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity in that self-same war, and against the German people themselves, you are able to ease your conscience:

    "The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector." -Luke 18, 11

    You are justified to kill with abandon, because you are not a sinner like those Germans.
    You are the good guys.


    For Americans the never ending war waged by their own government, which leaves them with no choice but to condone mass murder, is supposedly necessary to keep them safe.
     
    Support your charge against the German people.
    Or look at your own self/nation in a mirror.
    Or both.

    Excellent Riposte.
    Keep up the good work.

    Read More
  70. Nils says:
    @Benoite
    Truly a great article! Any chance of a Dutch summary (hapklare brokken) to be published in the Dutch media?

    Thank you Mr. van Wolferen.

    Yes,

    Whatch CafeWeltschmerz.nl, theinterview with Niemöller.

    Read More
    • Replies: @JUNIUS
    A word of caution about Niemöller. He was a star in the western media’s propaganda war against Germany for the seven years he was imprisoned for his anti-government activism. Niemöller also stated that he would rather see his homeland in ruins than stripped of his Draconian version of Christianity. He sided with his nation’s enemies when she was attacked by the mighty British and French empires.

    Niemoller’s critique of liberalism was identical to Hitler’s. He too held that liberalism’s obsession with democracy and individual freedom had failed, had in fact produced weak nations populated by alienated narcissists for whom the phrase “the common welfare” had no meaning. But his solution was traditional Christianity enshrined in the context of a neo-theocratic authoritarian government.

    Niemöller was influential in creating the October 1945 Declaration of Stuttgart, in which it was announced that all Germans were “guilty” of the crimes alleged by the Soviets at the ongoing Nuremberg Tribunals to have been committed by their late government. That Niemöller, a Lutheran cleric, should so avidly have advocated a collective German guilt is surrealistic, for no one more clearly recognized that the nature of guilt is personal, and not collective, than Martin Luther. Luther's Ninety-Five Theses of 1517 were expressions of a religion of the individual conscience. In Lutheranism, guilt, like faith, can by its very nature only be personal.
  71. @Jeff Blankfort
    Re Chomsky, it has nothing to do with age. He has been playing the same tunes with the same fiddle for some time. Here is what a mutual friend, the late Israeli professor and political analyst, Israel Shahak, had to say about him in 1991:

    Much of what Chomsky tells us is �not controversial� invariably proves to be very much so and particularly when it comes to the relations between Israel and the White House. The late revered Israeli scholar and human rights activist, Professor Israel Shahak, pointed out that Chomsky�s analysis suffers from his:

    [U]ndoubted tendency of demonizing the American presidency and the Executive in general, while ignoring the Legislature, but also from his very mistaken, in my opinion, tendency of assuming that not only the principles but literally everything concerning the American imperialism was laid in detail long ago, in 1944 or about that time, and from then on the policy is, so to say, a follow-up of instructions from a computer.

    This ignores not only the human factor in the US itself but also the completely different nature of the foes and the victims of the US during the last decades. There can be no doubt, in my own opinion, that the actual policies of the US are complex even when they are evil, influenced, as in the case of all other states, by many factors of which AIPAC is one and human stupidity (for which he never allows) is another.

    And finally, this very insightful paragraph:
    But such simplistic theories, backed by his memory and ability to pick isolated examples (sometimes from a long time ago like his stock example of Eisenhower in the case of Israel while ignoring everything else from 1967 on) can appeal to [the] young who look for certainty and also for those who don't want to [be] engaged in actual work and so find substitute for it in crude and useless display of emotion. [60]
     
    This was taken from my article of more than a decade ago: "Damage Control: Noam Chomsky and the Israel-Palestine Conflict, originally published in Left Curve and now found here: http://www.dissidentvoice.org/May05/Blankfort0525.htm

    What I have been reacting to is the realization that Chomsky like so many of us has limits that are easily exceeded. The election has brought out the shadow in many and Chomsky is no exception. In many ways the near universal catharsis that is now displaying may possibly be revolutionary. It’s so interesting that the most vociferous are the women. Their rising was legion throughout much of the developed world. The ladies appear to be in the vanguard as is fitting considering the power and the failures reside with males worldwide. Astounding!

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
  72. Alden says:
    @Veritatis
    I understand how you can look at it as an "emasculation". However, I as a woman, see the "worldwide protest" as a manipulation of women's best instincts. It is difficult to generalize across nations, but here it goes: women are very much social creatures, we like to be part of a group, if possible find love and nurture in the group or groups we belong to. We often get sentimental about "our group" and want to defend it, even if it is just the book club.
    Whoever organized the protests is -amongst other things- manipulating women to defend the group (all women all over) against the attacker (Trump). It is promoting a false first loyalty, "the sisterhood", against better claims:those of family, neighborhood, country, church.
    In the vacuum of identity in which we live, women (and many men) are looking for meaning in manufactured causes and leadership in the wrong people (Madonna?!)
    Women and men do best when we work towards common goals. Life is not ONLY a struggle for power. We don't have to be angry at each other.

    The women’s match was organized and paid for by at least 50 of the George Siros non profits such as move on, BLM etc.
    There were ads on Craig’s list promising to pay $2,500. The transportation and hotels were all arranged and paid for by the Soros non profits.

    I believe Soros wants to do to Pres Trump and America what he did in the Arab countries a few years ago.

    This is something thing I have thought about. The well organized hysteria against Trump is unprecedented There was some hysteria against Regean, but not like this.
    So, what were the powers that be planning to do to us if Hildabeast had won?

    Read More
  73. Alden says:
    @Mario64
    Prof. Van Wolferen,
    it looks like you have never read Walter Lippmann's work, political science's milestones Public Opinion and Phantom Public. He made very clear that any political power, either democracy or tyranny, stands on the bedrock of MANUFACTURING CONSENT.

    The real question that should be asked is why that happens and always happened. The answer is that it takes two to tango and for what concerns public awareness about politics "...The public will arrive in the middle of the third act and will leave before the last curtain, having stayed just long enough perhaps to decide who is the hero and who the villain of the piece. Yet usually that judgment will necessarily be made apart from the intrinsic merits, on the basis of a sample of behavior, an aspect of a situation, by very rough external evidence…" (The Phantom Public)

    Spin doctors' success is made possible thanks to the public's inherent complicity.
    "What is modern propaganda? For many, it is the lies of a totalitarian state. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl and asked her about her epic films that glorified the Nazis. Using revolutionary camera and lighting techniques, she produced a documentary form that mesmerized Germans; her "Triumph of the Will" cast Hitler’s spell.
    She told me that the “messages” of her films were dependent not on “orders from above”, but on the “submissive void” of the German public. Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? “Everyone,” she said.
    " (John Pilger - New Statesman - March 14th 2013) http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2013/03/new-propaganda-liberal-new-slavery-digital

    Manufacturing consent in order to be effective needs what Étienne de La Boétie in his “Discours de la servitude volontaire” (Discourse on Voluntary Servitude) defines as the “… secret de toute domination: faire participer les dominés à leur domination” (…the secret of all domination: to make the dominated participate to their own domination).

    But even when "destabilizing truth" comes out, look at what is the reaction of the public.
    On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.” Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame. She criticized Stahl’s segment as “amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda”; said that her question was a loaded question;[63][64] wrote “I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean”;[65] and regretted coming “across as cold-blooded and cruel”.[66] The segment won an Emmy Award.[45][67] Albright’s “non-denial” was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties.[57][63](Wikipedia)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE

    Did such blood curdling admission aired on a widely attended transmission as CBS' 60 Minutes move the American public opinion of an inch? Did it prevent American public from endorsing "twice" such genocidal war criminals as Clinton, Bush and Obama? Did it prevent 30 years of killing of and misery for millions of human beings, most of them children, women and innocent civilians?

    The answer is that the public is guilty as much as the rulers. Wasn't the German public guilty as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history? (Karl Jasper, La culpabilté allemand, Paris, Édition de Minuit, 1948 and Primo Levi, Le Naufrage et Les Rescapés. Quarante ans après Auschwitz. Paris, Gallimard 1989).
    Weren't the ancient Ahenians, widely considered as the most outstanding example of freedom and participatory politics, guilty for the genocide of the Melians? (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War , book 5, chapters 84–116)

    Hitler was not elected. The office of chancellor which he held was not an elected office.
    According to the constitution of the time only the President was elected. Hindenburg was elected President. According to the constitution at the time, the President appointed Hitler as chancellor.

    The German political parties were similar to America’s. The 2 major parties had about 90 percent of the vote. The rest of the votes were divided between 3 or 4 minor parties. The NAZI party was one of those minor parties that had a miniscule number of votes.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    That's 100% wrong. The Nazis were the largest party in Germany beginning in 1932 -- more than 40% of the vote.
    , @Mario64
    Adolf Hitler's rise to power (Wikipedia)
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

    ....Through the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Nazis gathered enough electoral support to become the largest political party in the Reichstag, and Hitler's blend of political acuity, deceptiveness and cunning converted the party's non-majority but plurality status into effective governing power in the ailing Weimar Republic of 1933.

    ...German election, May 1924 the party gained seats in the Reichstag, with 6.55% (1,918,329) voting for the Movement. In the German election, December 1924 the National Socialist Freedom Movement (NSFB) (Combination of the Deutschvölkische Freiheitspartei (DVFP) and the Nazi Party (NSDAP)) lost 18 seats, only holding on to 14 seats, with 3% (907,242) of the electorate voting for Hitler's party.

    ....In the German election, May 1928 the Party achieved just 12 seats (2.6% of the vote) in the Reichstag. The highest provincial gain was again in Bavaria (5.11%), though in three areas the NSDAP failed to gain even 1% of the vote. Overall the NSDAP gained 2.63% (810,127) of the vote.

    [September 1930].... Hitler's party gained a shocking victory in the Reichstag, obtaining 107 seats (18.3%, 6,406,397 votes)

    [July 1932]... The elections resulted in great gains by the Nazi party, who with 230 seats for the first time became the largest party in parliament. (37.27%, 13,745,680 votes).

    [November 1932]... 196 seats. 33.09%, 11,737,021 votes

    [March 1933]... 288 seats. 43.91%, 17,277,180 votes
  74. Ron Unz says:
    @utu
    I really did not get. Why the introduction? By unz.com standards it is not that provocative.

    I really did not get. Why the introduction? By unz.com standards it is not that provocative.

    I’m very pleased that this fine piece has been getting the strong traffic and positive comments it certainly deserved.

    However, I also noticed there had also been considerable analysis of my use of the word “provocative” in the short editorial introduction. I’m afraid there’s far less here than people are considering.

    I’m *totally* preoccupied with my software work right now. But since it had been a year or two since Karel had published anything here, I decided to take thirty seconds to add a casual introductory sentence emphasizing his journalistic stature, and the precise words I happened to use were hardly the product of deep introspection.

    My apologies for diverting attention to unimportant side issues, but I’m hoping people will be understanding once I finally release my new software system.

    Read More
  75. annamaria says:
    @AP

    If the popular moment was as strong as you describe, then why the martyrs of the “heavenly hundred” and the civil war just two months before the legitimate election
     
    1. Yanukovich moved up the election as a desperate reaction to the protests. They had been scheduled for a year later.

    2. Nobody believed the election would have been legitimate. General consensus was that the two months would be a window in which to beef up security apparatus/purge those whose loyalty had wavered (so that the election could later be cancelled, or faked and resistance crushed), and/or steal as much as possible in case of an escape.

    It seems that you are unaware of Brennan’s visit to Kiev on the eve of the civili war. In case you do not know, Mr. Brennan is a former Director of CIA
     
    And a French general and thousands of French troops were on US soil during the American Revolution. The American Revolution was ended by the Treaty of Paris.

    It must have been a French coup against the British, not a popular uprising, right?

    Hmm, remind us how many US troops participated in the Ukrainian Revolution?

    There were a lot of courageous and principled protesters in Kiev in 2014, but their movement was co-opted and corrupted
     
    Idealists were indeed replaced by more clever and more ruthless types, who have stifled the progress that had originally been made. This has nothing to do with whether or not what happened in 2013-2014 was a "coup" or a popular uprising.

    As for the morale… “Poroshenko’s public approval rating, after winning the presidency with 55% of the vote in 2014, is now 6.4% according to pollsters at Rating
     
    Yes, other pro-Revolution parties are more popular instead. Poroshenko has disappointed, but if people had regretted the popular revolution then the Opposition Bloc (the political heir of the deposed Party of Regions of Yanukovich ) would have seen a surge in popularity. Hasn't happened.

    In 2013-2014 the western and central parts of Ukraine (half the country) engaged in a popular revolt and overthrew the government, whose support was less enthusiastic and whose supporters were outnumbered and largely limited to the country's southern and eastern fringe, far from the capital. To characterize this as a Western "coup", simply because the West provided support and encouragement, is to demonstrate the lack of credibility of the person describing it as a coup.

    “To characterize this as a Western “coup”, simply because the West provided support and encouragement, is to demonstrate the lack of credibility of the person describing it as a coup.”
    You mean Friedman of Stratford? – It seems that he was correct. If the Kievan junta was interested in the well-being of Ukrainians at large, then the barbarity of the Kiev-initiated civil war (immediately after the arrival of Brennan) would not happen. The US is fine with federalism, as well as Switzerland. But for the junta and their handlers this simple solution was unacceptable. Hence the blood and death and the handicapped. Is Ukraine better today? – for the Canadian Russophobes of banderite legacy the answer is “yes.” For Ukrainians at large not at all:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/ukraine-needs-russia-nicolai-petro

    Going back to the statement that there was no coup d’etat (that Ukraine was not “handled”). What proud nation would allow a fraudulent American of Ukrainian descent to run its finances? What proud nation would allow a foreigner on a run from his native country to become appointed as a governor of an important region (Odessa?) What the Jewish Community of Ukraine has been thinking about the auto-da-fe of civilians, which was conducted by the thugs on a payroll of a wealthy Jewish man? The Qs multiply and the As are painful.
    The most important point is, the “handled” Kiev was not keen on a bloodless solution to the hard problems. It was “we do not do diplomacy” approach that is so characteristic for the US policies abroad. The ongoing Ukrainian tragedy… Sad.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    “To characterize this as a Western “coup”, simply because the West provided support and encouragement, is to demonstrate the lack of credibility of the person describing it as a coup.”
    You mean Friedman of Stratford?
     
    He lost credibility when he claimed that. Of course, he also described it as a revolution and an uprising and has made many other statements on which he can be judged. The author of this article, meanwhile, just has "coup", Ukraine shooting down the jet, and a 9-11 conspiracy theory as demonstrations of his "knowledge."

    If the Kievan junta was interested in the well-being of Ukrainians at large, then the barbarity of the Kiev-initiated civil war (immediately after the arrival of Brennan) would not happen
     
    Given Russia's support of Assad, whose war has been far deadlier (100,000s of dead people deadleir) than Poroshenko's, this is an odd complaint.

    Junta is another ridiculous word to use here, like coup.

    The US is fine with federalism, as well as Switzerland.
     
    The "federalism" that the mix of unelected armed pro-Russian fighters (many of whom were not locals but foreign citizens) in Donbas demanded was nothing like the federalism within the USA. American states do not have veto power over national decisions and are not allowed to avoid national trade deals or to make their own.

    Going back to the statement that there was no coup d’etat (that Ukraine was not “handled”)
     
    Answer the question I asked you. France sent thousands of soldiers and a French general to America during the Revolution. Its navy blockaded the USA and contributed to the critical American victory at Yorktown. The final peace treaty was signed in Paris.

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.

    What proud nation would allow a fraudulent American of Ukrainian descent to run its finances?
     
    Just as plenty of Jews from outside Israel have positions in Israel, or a Latvian-American ruled Latvia, so a Ukrainian-American was finance minister of Ukraine. It's unfortunate she did not become PM.

    What proud nation would allow a foreigner on a run from his native country to become appointed as a governor of an important region (Odessa?
     
    When a Russian guy who moved to to Ukraine when he was in his thirties, was PM of the entire country, he was overthrown. Somehow you were fine with his rule.

    Worse than a Georgian governor is foreign warlords like "Motorola" running around killing citizens of the country he has moved to. You don't seem to have a problem with Assad violently taking care of this problem in his own country, but you do when Ukraine's president does so (on a much milder more humane scale, moreover).

    The ongoing Ukrainian tragedy… Sad.
     
    We know you are sad because you lost. So the best you can do is gloat about any stumbles afterward.
  76. Cyrano says:

    Ukraine has been one of the beneficiaries of US ability to create a new reality. It’s a match made in heaven – on one side you have a country that has this magic ability to create new realities, and on the other side you have Ukraine who has problems accepting reality. After all, these are the same people who welcomed the Germans as liberators – with bouquets of flowers.

    Talking about confused people, how do you overlook a fact such as Hitler calling them untermensch and planning to apply generous euthanasia program to relieve the suffering of the Ukrainian land from some inferior Slavic genes and replacing them with superior German ones.

    After the experiences in the last 25 years no one disputes the ability of US to create a new reality. The problem is the reality the US are able to create is usually far, far worse than the reality which would have occurred if they didn’t intervene. Same thing for Ukraine, the reality that Putin offered them was far better, 15 billion dollars, plus half price on gas. I guess the “reasoning” in Ukraine went something like this: If Putin is offering us such a good deal, it must be because the US has something even better in store for us. Enjoy your new reality, Ukraine.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    "...a fact such as Hitler calling them untermensch and planning to apply generous euthanasia program to relieve the suffering of the Ukrainian land..."

    Please provide the source of your assertion. And no, comic books and warmed-over war propaganda does not count. HdC
  77. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Indeed, the 'women's march' was nothing more than Rebels Without a Clue.

    53% of all white women voted for Trump.

    62% of non-college degree white women voted for Trump.

    And who did we see at this childish event? The white women who lost, that's who. So where was their mandated 'diversity'?

    Yet there was no real issues. Rove vs. Wade is all about taxpayer funding of abortions, not whether women can or cannot get abortions. Their arguments are pure strawman, false.

    Why should US taxpayers be forced to pay for other people's abortions when those people made their own choice to have sex?

    Of course they won't discuss the fact that women are legally stoned in Muslim countries, or that women can't even drive cars in Muslim countries, and the fact that gays are legally executed for being gay in Muslim countries.
    And that Hillary took millions in 'donations' from those very countries.

    For sure though, wearing pink 'PUSSY' hats really helps advance 'women's dignity'

    'feminist' Miley Cyrus certainly knows how to advance 'women's dignity':
    http://images.intouchweekly.com/uploads/posts/image/69834/miley-cyrus.jpg

    And guess what. When they got home afterwards Trump was still President of the US.

    Rove vs. Wade is all about taxpayer funding of abortions, not whether women can or cannot get abortions.

    Yeah, no it isn’t. What’s it like to believe everything you read?

    Read More
  78. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Alden
    Hitler was not elected. The office of chancellor which he held was not an elected office.
    According to the constitution of the time only the President was elected. Hindenburg was elected President. According to the constitution at the time, the President appointed Hitler as chancellor.

    The German political parties were similar to America's. The 2 major parties had about 90 percent of the vote. The rest of the votes were divided between 3 or 4 minor parties. The NAZI party was one of those minor parties that had a miniscule number of votes.

    That’s 100% wrong. The Nazis were the largest party in Germany beginning in 1932 — more than 40% of the vote.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rabbitnexus
    They never actually called themselves Nazis. That was a propaganda term from the Allies. They were called National Socialists.
    , @Alden
    You are 1,000 percent wrong. Hitler was not elected he was appointed by the elected President Hindenberg. And the Nazi party was one of the smaller parties.

    You've been reading too much Jewish, FDR, Russian and Churchill propaganda.

  79. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    It's helps to realize that Chomsky is a rabid, irrational Zionist, supporter of "that shitty little country".
    see:
    'Noam Chomsky says Hitler ruined a good thing'
    http://forum.codoh.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=10884

    However, there is no better example of fraud then the impossible '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers'.

    The 'holocau$t' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship.
    Truth doesn't need protection from scrutiny & free speech.

    Dare to examine the absurd & laughable 'holocaust' storyline rationally, logically, scientifically and it falls apart like the house-of-cards that it is.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    Why have supremacist Jews have been marketing the '6,000,000' lie since at least 1869?

    http://i1117.photobucket.com/albums/k598/WhiteWolf722/TheSixMillionMyth.jpg

    Chomsky is a rabid, irrational Zionist

    On what basis do you make this claim?

    Read More
  80. @edNels

    "We’re very pleased to run this provocative new piece…"
     
    __________________

    Finding it necessary to introduce this fine article as provocative sez a lot about...]
     
    I think the intro was intended to be humorous,

    and will also stand in for a disclaimer, distancing device: That is the joke! apropos the content of the article which includes several instances of the ironic refusal to discuss certain off limits topics by a couple of the days reputedly most outspoken media critics, Chomsky and A. Coburn, etc.

    I think the intro was intended to be humorous…

    Even if it was, my assertion remains valid!

    Read More
  81. @Seamus Padraig

    It’s much worse than that. If you refuse to play the game you can wind up maimed for life or killed.
     
    Yup. Consider the case of Seth Rich, who was killed for leaking the Podesta emails to WikiLeaks.

    Yes. There are many many cases that we know about, and many that we should, but don’t.

    Read More
  82. A seminal article, thank you.

    Quite frightening in it’s conclusion and not a conclusion easily denied. One hopes only by now that something is going to break, somehow the mask will fall but absent something extraordinary and on a global scale I don’t see it coming. Could the game already be over?

    Read More
  83. @Anon
    That's 100% wrong. The Nazis were the largest party in Germany beginning in 1932 -- more than 40% of the vote.

    They never actually called themselves Nazis. That was a propaganda term from the Allies. They were called National Socialists.

    Read More
  84. @Mario64
    Prof. Van Wolferen,
    it looks like you have never read Walter Lippmann's work, political science's milestones Public Opinion and Phantom Public. He made very clear that any political power, either democracy or tyranny, stands on the bedrock of MANUFACTURING CONSENT.

    The real question that should be asked is why that happens and always happened. The answer is that it takes two to tango and for what concerns public awareness about politics "...The public will arrive in the middle of the third act and will leave before the last curtain, having stayed just long enough perhaps to decide who is the hero and who the villain of the piece. Yet usually that judgment will necessarily be made apart from the intrinsic merits, on the basis of a sample of behavior, an aspect of a situation, by very rough external evidence…" (The Phantom Public)

    Spin doctors' success is made possible thanks to the public's inherent complicity.
    "What is modern propaganda? For many, it is the lies of a totalitarian state. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl and asked her about her epic films that glorified the Nazis. Using revolutionary camera and lighting techniques, she produced a documentary form that mesmerized Germans; her "Triumph of the Will" cast Hitler’s spell.
    She told me that the “messages” of her films were dependent not on “orders from above”, but on the “submissive void” of the German public. Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? “Everyone,” she said.
    " (John Pilger - New Statesman - March 14th 2013) http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2013/03/new-propaganda-liberal-new-slavery-digital

    Manufacturing consent in order to be effective needs what Étienne de La Boétie in his “Discours de la servitude volontaire” (Discourse on Voluntary Servitude) defines as the “… secret de toute domination: faire participer les dominés à leur domination” (…the secret of all domination: to make the dominated participate to their own domination).

    But even when "destabilizing truth" comes out, look at what is the reaction of the public.
    On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.” Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame. She criticized Stahl’s segment as “amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda”; said that her question was a loaded question;[63][64] wrote “I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean”;[65] and regretted coming “across as cold-blooded and cruel”.[66] The segment won an Emmy Award.[45][67] Albright’s “non-denial” was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties.[57][63](Wikipedia)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE

    Did such blood curdling admission aired on a widely attended transmission as CBS' 60 Minutes move the American public opinion of an inch? Did it prevent American public from endorsing "twice" such genocidal war criminals as Clinton, Bush and Obama? Did it prevent 30 years of killing of and misery for millions of human beings, most of them children, women and innocent civilians?

    The answer is that the public is guilty as much as the rulers. Wasn't the German public guilty as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history? (Karl Jasper, La culpabilté allemand, Paris, Édition de Minuit, 1948 and Primo Levi, Le Naufrage et Les Rescapés. Quarante ans après Auschwitz. Paris, Gallimard 1989).
    Weren't the ancient Ahenians, widely considered as the most outstanding example of freedom and participatory politics, guilty for the genocide of the Melians? (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War , book 5, chapters 84–116)

    Wasn’t the German public guilty as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history? ?

    No. Germany at that time faced the twin threats of Bolshevism and the thoroughly corrupt and degenerate British empire.

    Hard to believe that given Lenin and Stalin’s crimes and US and Brit support for them that the German public guilty were as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history.

    75 years later and people still parrot old Brit and Bolshie propaganda. Amazing.

    [MORE]

    “You protest, and with justice, each time Hitler jails an opponent; but you forget that Stalin and company have jailed and murdered a thousand times as many. It seems to me, and indeed the evidence is plain, that compared to the Moscow brigands and assassins, Hitler is hardly more than a common Ku Kluxer and Mussolini almost a philanthropist.”

    - H. L. Mencken, in an open letter to Upton Sinclair, printed in The American Mercury, June 1936

    “Revisionism as applied to World War II and its origins (as also for previous wars) has the general function of bringing historical truth to an American and a world public that had been drugged by wartime lies and propaganda.

    The least of the lessons that revisionism can teach has already been thoroughly learned ( ed: by a select few): that Germany and Japan are not uniquely “aggressor nations,” doomed from birth to menace the peace of the world. The larger lessons have, unfortunately, yet to be learned.”

    Now revisionism teaches us that this entire myth, so prevalent then and even now about Hitler, and about the Japanese, is a tissue of fallacies from beginning to end. Every plank in this nightmare evidence is either completely untrue or not entirely the truth.

    If people should learn this intellectual fraud about Hitler’s Germany, then they will begin to ask questions, and searching questions…”

    Murray Rothbard, Revisionism for Our Times, 1966. Note: This gentleman was also Jewish.

    http://mises.org/daily/2592

    Read More
  85. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Sean

    The son of a clergyman, Whately was educated at Oriel College, Oxford, and took holy orders. While at Oxford, he wrote his satiric Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (1819), in which he attacked the stringent application of logic to the Bible by showing that the same methods used to cast doubt on the miracles would also leave the existence of Napoleon open to question.
     
    Except from Whately's work:-

    But is it in fact found that undisputed points are always such as have been the most carefully examined as to the evidence on which they rest? that facts or principles which are taken for granted, without controversy, as the common basis of opposite opinions, are always themselves established on sufficient grounds? On the contrary, is not any such fundamental point, from the very circumstance of its being taken for granted at once, and the attention drawn off to some other question, likely to be admitted on insufficient evidence, and the flaws in that evidence overlooked?

    Experience will teach us that such instances often occur: witness the well-known anecdote of the Royal Society; to whom King Charles II. proposed as a question, whence it is that a vessel of water receives no addition of weight from a live fish being put into it, though it does, if the fish be dead. Various solutions, of great ingenuity, were proposed, discussed, objected to, and defended; nor was it till they had been long bewildered in the inquiry, that it occurred to them to try the experiment; by which they at once ascertained that the phenomenon which they were striving to account for,—which was the acknowledged basis and substratum, as it were, of their debates,—had no existence but in the invention of the witty monarch.[1]
     

    Rove's prophecy, not long before the election, was Trump couldn't win, but he did. So who is the great mastermind and shaper of events that others can only watch and wonder at?

    I do freely confess I think there good reason think it more likely that Trump rather than Rove and company orchestrated 9/11. For the Donald has defeated them, and them went on to take the leadership of the country and the right to appoint intelligence agency leadership with no telling how he would use it. They couldn't stop him, but an American cabal who did 9/11 would stopped him at whatever cost. He is more capable of pulling off a false flag 9/11 than the Neocon and/or their CIA minions.

    You know Bobby Fischer, who maybe was the highest IQ person ever, had all the fillings taken out his teeth to improve his health. The problem was he didn't have them replaced with anything and his teeth, being open to decay, were attacked and destroyed by bacteria. A hyperlogical high IQ tinfoil hat brigade would denude their country of vital protection from foreign attack, because all countries ceaselessly attack and interfere in others internal affairs, whenever they see a weakness. It is national suicide not to The US did it in Ukraine and the Russians would have surely have attempted it in the presidential election .

    Leaving other countries (like Russia) alone is not an option, because it is easy to know what they might do with an increase in relative power gained in a period of bring left in peace in their own backyard: they'd come for us and try to weaken us.

    I do freely confess I think there good reason think it more likely that Trump rather than Rove and company orchestrated 9/11.

    Not Trump, but Likudniks, who supported Trump during the campaign.

    Read More
  86. @ThereisaGod
    Could all this be true (and it is) because all modern western societies have become instruments of what Henry Ford warned us against, "The International Jew"?

    The bankers have had total control of the top of our systems. Trump might be a temporary setback but these people surely have enough instruments at hand to bring him down before his asserted aim of Peace with Russia and "co-operation" in international affairs is established as any kind of habit.

    “…these people surely have enough instruments at hand to bring him down before his asserted aim of Peace with Russia…”

    Conversely, as president, he has enough power to bring ***THEM*** down. He could put them all in the dock for war crimes. That would terminate their careers and life as they knew it.

    The establishment insiders — the members of “the club” — have relied on the unspoken rule that none of them are to be held accountable. Obama’s famous “Look forward not back” is that rule in action. He wanted to be admitted to the club.

    Despite his wealth, Trump is not a club member. He’s a blue collar billionaire. A bad boy mentored by Roy Cohn in the art of destroying one’s adversaries. So, if “the Club” messes with him it may turn out that they picked the wrong guy to mess with. We shall see.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    Consider also that MIKE PENCE IS VICE PRESIDENT.

    Recall that Pence had just announced his intention to run for president when the flap over selling cupcakes to gays erupted in Indiana.

    At first, Pence supported the bakers: they should not be compelled to sell to homosexuals if it offended their values.

    Then, money-men, CEOs from other states swarmed over Indiana, threatening various events and sources of revenue and commerce in Indiana. Pence and the Indiana state legislature were forced to back down, in obeisance to the demands of out-of-state, unelected actors.

    Pence's bid for the presidency was swept away in the debris.

    But He Came Back.

    And he is VP.

    That must really piss off the money men.
  87. AP says:
    @annamaria
    "To characterize this as a Western “coup”, simply because the West provided support and encouragement, is to demonstrate the lack of credibility of the person describing it as a coup."
    You mean Friedman of Stratford? - It seems that he was correct. If the Kievan junta was interested in the well-being of Ukrainians at large, then the barbarity of the Kiev-initiated civil war (immediately after the arrival of Brennan) would not happen. The US is fine with federalism, as well as Switzerland. But for the junta and their handlers this simple solution was unacceptable. Hence the blood and death and the handicapped. Is Ukraine better today? - for the Canadian Russophobes of banderite legacy the answer is "yes." For Ukrainians at large not at all:
    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/09/ukraine-needs-russia-nicolai-petro
    Going back to the statement that there was no coup d'etat (that Ukraine was not "handled"). What proud nation would allow a fraudulent American of Ukrainian descent to run its finances? What proud nation would allow a foreigner on a run from his native country to become appointed as a governor of an important region (Odessa?) What the Jewish Community of Ukraine has been thinking about the auto-da-fe of civilians, which was conducted by the thugs on a payroll of a wealthy Jewish man? The Qs multiply and the As are painful.
    The most important point is, the "handled" Kiev was not keen on a bloodless solution to the hard problems. It was "we do not do diplomacy" approach that is so characteristic for the US policies abroad. The ongoing Ukrainian tragedy... Sad.

    “To characterize this as a Western “coup”, simply because the West provided support and encouragement, is to demonstrate the lack of credibility of the person describing it as a coup.”
    You mean Friedman of Stratford?

    He lost credibility when he claimed that. Of course, he also described it as a revolution and an uprising and has made many other statements on which he can be judged. The author of this article, meanwhile, just has “coup”, Ukraine shooting down the jet, and a 9-11 conspiracy theory as demonstrations of his “knowledge.”

    If the Kievan junta was interested in the well-being of Ukrainians at large, then the barbarity of the Kiev-initiated civil war (immediately after the arrival of Brennan) would not happen

    Given Russia’s support of Assad, whose war has been far deadlier (100,000s of dead people deadleir) than Poroshenko’s, this is an odd complaint.

    Junta is another ridiculous word to use here, like coup.

    The US is fine with federalism, as well as Switzerland.

    The “federalism” that the mix of unelected armed pro-Russian fighters (many of whom were not locals but foreign citizens) in Donbas demanded was nothing like the federalism within the USA. American states do not have veto power over national decisions and are not allowed to avoid national trade deals or to make their own.

    Going back to the statement that there was no coup d’etat (that Ukraine was not “handled”)

    Answer the question I asked you. France sent thousands of soldiers and a French general to America during the Revolution. Its navy blockaded the USA and contributed to the critical American victory at Yorktown. The final peace treaty was signed in Paris.

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.

    What proud nation would allow a fraudulent American of Ukrainian descent to run its finances?

    Just as plenty of Jews from outside Israel have positions in Israel, or a Latvian-American ruled Latvia, so a Ukrainian-American was finance minister of Ukraine. It’s unfortunate she did not become PM.

    What proud nation would allow a foreigner on a run from his native country to become appointed as a governor of an important region (Odessa?

    When a Russian guy who moved to to Ukraine when he was in his thirties, was PM of the entire country, he was overthrown. Somehow you were fine with his rule.

    Worse than a Georgian governor is foreign warlords like “Motorola” running around killing citizens of the country he has moved to. You don’t seem to have a problem with Assad violently taking care of this problem in his own country, but you do when Ukraine’s president does so (on a much milder more humane scale, moreover).

    The ongoing Ukrainian tragedy… Sad.

    We know you are sad because you lost. So the best you can do is gloat about any stumbles afterward.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "Given Russia’s support of Assad, whose war has been far deadlier (100,000s of dead people deadleir) than Poroshenko’s, this is an odd complaint."
    Now you imply that the ongoing 7 wars in the Middle East are somehow the responsibility of Russian federation. Please stop creating "new reality." Also, you need to check the dates.

    "Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine."
    Well, it is hard to see any resemblance between Ukrainian neo-Nazis, Chocolate King and such on one hand, and the highly educated founding fathers like Jefferson and Franklin (a renowned polymath) on the other hand. And do you really try to allude to Nuland-Kagan when you mention the proud Marquis de Lafayette? Perhaps you realize now that your story is a farce.

    , @joe webb
    I am interested in your overall view of Ukraine/Russia. I do not claim to know much about it, and just assume it is a national issue. thanks, Joe Webb
  88. CanSpeccy says: • Website
    @Sean

    The son of a clergyman, Whately was educated at Oriel College, Oxford, and took holy orders. While at Oxford, he wrote his satiric Historic Doubts Relative to Napoleon Bonaparte (1819), in which he attacked the stringent application of logic to the Bible by showing that the same methods used to cast doubt on the miracles would also leave the existence of Napoleon open to question.
     
    Except from Whately's work:-

    But is it in fact found that undisputed points are always such as have been the most carefully examined as to the evidence on which they rest? that facts or principles which are taken for granted, without controversy, as the common basis of opposite opinions, are always themselves established on sufficient grounds? On the contrary, is not any such fundamental point, from the very circumstance of its being taken for granted at once, and the attention drawn off to some other question, likely to be admitted on insufficient evidence, and the flaws in that evidence overlooked?

    Experience will teach us that such instances often occur: witness the well-known anecdote of the Royal Society; to whom King Charles II. proposed as a question, whence it is that a vessel of water receives no addition of weight from a live fish being put into it, though it does, if the fish be dead. Various solutions, of great ingenuity, were proposed, discussed, objected to, and defended; nor was it till they had been long bewildered in the inquiry, that it occurred to them to try the experiment; by which they at once ascertained that the phenomenon which they were striving to account for,—which was the acknowledged basis and substratum, as it were, of their debates,—had no existence but in the invention of the witty monarch.[1]
     

    Rove's prophecy, not long before the election, was Trump couldn't win, but he did. So who is the great mastermind and shaper of events that others can only watch and wonder at?

    I do freely confess I think there good reason think it more likely that Trump rather than Rove and company orchestrated 9/11. For the Donald has defeated them, and them went on to take the leadership of the country and the right to appoint intelligence agency leadership with no telling how he would use it. They couldn't stop him, but an American cabal who did 9/11 would stopped him at whatever cost. He is more capable of pulling off a false flag 9/11 than the Neocon and/or their CIA minions.

    You know Bobby Fischer, who maybe was the highest IQ person ever, had all the fillings taken out his teeth to improve his health. The problem was he didn't have them replaced with anything and his teeth, being open to decay, were attacked and destroyed by bacteria. A hyperlogical high IQ tinfoil hat brigade would denude their country of vital protection from foreign attack, because all countries ceaselessly attack and interfere in others internal affairs, whenever they see a weakness. It is national suicide not to The US did it in Ukraine and the Russians would have surely have attempted it in the presidential election .

    Leaving other countries (like Russia) alone is not an option, because it is easy to know what they might do with an increase in relative power gained in a period of bring left in peace in their own backyard: they'd come for us and try to weaken us.

    You know Bobby Fischer, who maybe was the highest IQ person ever, had all the fillings taken out his teeth to improve his health. The problem was he didn’t have them replaced with anything and his teeth, being open to decay, were attacked and destroyed by bacteria.

    LOL. Conclusive evidence that IQ and intelligence have little if any relationship with one another.

    Read More
  89. annamaria says:
    @AP

    “To characterize this as a Western “coup”, simply because the West provided support and encouragement, is to demonstrate the lack of credibility of the person describing it as a coup.”
    You mean Friedman of Stratford?
     
    He lost credibility when he claimed that. Of course, he also described it as a revolution and an uprising and has made many other statements on which he can be judged. The author of this article, meanwhile, just has "coup", Ukraine shooting down the jet, and a 9-11 conspiracy theory as demonstrations of his "knowledge."

    If the Kievan junta was interested in the well-being of Ukrainians at large, then the barbarity of the Kiev-initiated civil war (immediately after the arrival of Brennan) would not happen
     
    Given Russia's support of Assad, whose war has been far deadlier (100,000s of dead people deadleir) than Poroshenko's, this is an odd complaint.

    Junta is another ridiculous word to use here, like coup.

    The US is fine with federalism, as well as Switzerland.
     
    The "federalism" that the mix of unelected armed pro-Russian fighters (many of whom were not locals but foreign citizens) in Donbas demanded was nothing like the federalism within the USA. American states do not have veto power over national decisions and are not allowed to avoid national trade deals or to make their own.

    Going back to the statement that there was no coup d’etat (that Ukraine was not “handled”)
     
    Answer the question I asked you. France sent thousands of soldiers and a French general to America during the Revolution. Its navy blockaded the USA and contributed to the critical American victory at Yorktown. The final peace treaty was signed in Paris.

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.

    What proud nation would allow a fraudulent American of Ukrainian descent to run its finances?
     
    Just as plenty of Jews from outside Israel have positions in Israel, or a Latvian-American ruled Latvia, so a Ukrainian-American was finance minister of Ukraine. It's unfortunate she did not become PM.

    What proud nation would allow a foreigner on a run from his native country to become appointed as a governor of an important region (Odessa?
     
    When a Russian guy who moved to to Ukraine when he was in his thirties, was PM of the entire country, he was overthrown. Somehow you were fine with his rule.

    Worse than a Georgian governor is foreign warlords like "Motorola" running around killing citizens of the country he has moved to. You don't seem to have a problem with Assad violently taking care of this problem in his own country, but you do when Ukraine's president does so (on a much milder more humane scale, moreover).

    The ongoing Ukrainian tragedy… Sad.
     
    We know you are sad because you lost. So the best you can do is gloat about any stumbles afterward.

    “Given Russia’s support of Assad, whose war has been far deadlier (100,000s of dead people deadleir) than Poroshenko’s, this is an odd complaint.”
    Now you imply that the ongoing 7 wars in the Middle East are somehow the responsibility of Russian federation. Please stop creating “new reality.” Also, you need to check the dates.

    “Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.”
    Well, it is hard to see any resemblance between Ukrainian neo-Nazis, Chocolate King and such on one hand, and the highly educated founding fathers like Jefferson and Franklin (a renowned polymath) on the other hand. And do you really try to allude to Nuland-Kagan when you mention the proud Marquis de Lafayette? Perhaps you realize now that your story is a farce.

    Read More
  90. AP says:

    “Given Russia’s support of Assad, whose war has been far deadlier (100,000s of dead people deadleir) than Poroshenko’s, this is an odd complaint.”

    Now you imply that the ongoing 7 wars in the Middle East are somehow the responsibility of Russian federation. Please stop creating “new reality.” Also, you need to check the dates.

    I was clear in what I wrote and made no implication about “7 wars in the Middle East.”

    Russia supports Assad in his fight against a mixture of domestic and foreign fighters. Death toll is 317,000-470,000, depending on estimates, in Syria. It’s fine to support Assad in Syria and Russia does so. But if you do so, you look very strange complaining so bitterly about Poroshenko and the Kiev government whose war has a death toll of about 10,000.

    “Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.”

    Well, it is hard to see any resemblance between Ukrainian neo-Nazis, Chocolate King and such on one hand, and the highly educated founding fathers like Jefferson and Franklin (a renowned polymath) on the other hand.

    Nice attempt at deflection. I didn’t ask if Poroshenko was comparable to Washington and Jefferson. Of course he isn’t.

    I asked: Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine*

    Your refusal to answer this question strongly suggests that you admit that it was not. And thus, that neither was the revolution in Ukraine, given that the West’s support for Ukraine’s Revolution was not even close to being as extensive as was the French support for the American Revolution.

    But go ahead and try to change the subject again.

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Actually I simply pointed out to the main thrust of your comparison of the current situation in Ukraine and the distant history of the US: You have been trying to compare the activists in the current Kiev government - the self-proclaimed neo-Nazis and the oligarchs such as Poroshenko (who continues making business in Russia) and Kolomojsky (a looter of Ukraine) and similar scum, with the highly educated (Franklin) and personally courageous (Washington) founding fathers. Moreover, you continued evoking the name of Genera Lafayette as if making a connection between the noble revolutionary and the ignoble ideologists from the Kagans' clan as well as the operatives from CIA.
    Could you go back to reality instead of putting lipstick on a pig?
    http://journal-neo.org/2014/03/07/bbc-now-admits-armed-nazis-led/
  91. Art says:

    “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” (Ron Suskind, NYTimes Magazine, Oct. 17, 2004).

    Sorry – but Rove does not have the brains to say something like that. Some Jew told him that.

    That is how the Jews maintain power over a culture – they create a lie that starts chaos – just before that lie goes fallow – a new lie is put out compounding the first lie and maintaining the chaos.

    That is what they mean when they say “create reality” – their made-up “reality” is a lie. They repeat it over and over getting people to believe it. Because it is a lie, eventually it fails, eventually it goes bad – then they create a NEW reality with a new lie. It all works until the culture is in total chaos. (First it was PNAC and all that followed, now its Russia.)

    Peace — Art

    Read More
  92. JoeFour says:

    “The triumph of political untruth has brought into being a vast system of political intimidation. Remember then that the intimidater does not really care what you believe or not, but impresses you with the fact that you have no choice.”

    … Yes, indeed, and then we are left with 2 + 2 = 5 … because TPTB say so …

    Excellent article.

    Read More
  93. @alexander
    Thank you for a fine article , Mr. Van Wolferen,

    I too recall the statement attributed to Karl Rove.


    There is another word one can use, when the "powers that be "choose to "create their own reality"

    Its called "FRAUD".

    As a matter of fact....it is fraud.

    This systemic fraud .......This "empire of fraud"...... is responsible for liquidating 14.3 trillion dollars of US solvency in a mere 16 years, and may well have lead to the complete collapse of the United States of America.

    Americans now look at all these people...these "Empire of fraud" people....with absolute contempt....They are total failures.

    They are a complete joke.

    They , and their deep state "empire of lies" ....have utterly failed our nation.

    Will they ever be held to account for what they have done ?

    I guess that remains to be seen.

    BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Read More
  94. joe webb says:

    I kept waiting for the word jew, or israel. The closest it came to that was one mention of neocon.

    The ‘created reality’ of empire is a bit like a spook. How different is this from other political events of the past? How far back can we go?

    The myths of one person are the facts of another. The Rove copy makes good imaginative stuff, but, in my earth-bound and empirical orientation, I reject it as having much worth.

    The ghost in the machine of American Empire in Europe and the ME is jewish (pardon me for the perhaps distorted use of ghost/machine).

    It is all real clear, like Sniegoski’s treatment of the neocons…the Transparent Cabal. Israel gets the US to fight its wars, based on Biblical and holocaust stories, actually mostly, as i keep on keeping on about, the Protestants who are in luv with the jews…Biblical authority. Kill Them All…Deuteronomy.

    9-11 was an Arab reaction to US support of Israel. Arabs can fly airplanes, (shucks I flew a fighter jet in a simulator and landed it safely despite the attendants trying to crash me….what did I know except common knowledge about planes, at least small ones..).. No, Arabs are too stupid to fly a commercial jet, it was the CIA.

    Iraq wars…all for the jews, and the neocons are universally now understood to have caused those wars. Then the other ones, including Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria now…with the Isis and other jihadists groups in part supported by the US/Israel to kill Assad, etc. More deep state stuff.

    This is simple, Assad and Iran and Hisbollah and Hamas oppose Israel. They must go.

    Russia must go too. They support Assad. They want to reclaim their Rights…the jews hate Russia
    because Russia threw out the Jews, or neutralized their power. Ukraine, same thing…the Jews hate Russia. Putin is a Bad Man. Ukraine is a nationalisms conflict. Russian and Ukrainian. They fight. Big deal. The saker calls the Ukrainians fascists and the White hats are the Russians.

    There is no ‘created reality’, there is just reality. Political science. The jews are behind all of the mischief in the ME, having dispossessed and stolen a whole country of Arabs in the Arab World.
    Talk about Created Reality. Jewish Created Reality. Dead Arabs, stolen land, Terroism by Jews, some say introduced for the first time in the ME in 1948 with Stern and Irgun.

    There is nothing in the ME worth fighting for….oil is a left-wing obsession and red-herring. The world is awash in oil, including the US. Fight for Arabs? forget it. Fight for jews? forget it.

    The Created Reality in the ME is all Israel and Jews. It is blowing up in their faces, Terrorism is normal for embittered people. In Haiti, the black slaves rose up, and murdered all 25,000 French people, children included…about 1803…1789 crazy ideas of course.

    So, the US is the jews sock-puppet and we do this and that, false flags, NGOs to topple other countries, like the Orange Revolutions, which flopped as I recall.

    All I can say in context, is So What? There is nothing new here. However, scribblers love to get into mysteries of the Matrix, the Deep State, the Ruling Class, and so on.
    Why not just look at all of this stuff as Normal.

    What is normal is people fight back, states intrigue, Jews subvert… especially Protestants, and on it all goes. Of course, this is not to minimize the dangers we are in, with folks even like Trump who got this passionate attachment to a foreign power and an alien people, who will never assimilate into US society…and I am not talking about muzzies.

    The American folks, deplorably, have had enough with war, even for the jews….they voted for Trump like they voted for Obongo, cuz T. says he will retire the wars. we will see. Obongo did keep us out of war, for the most part. Obongo made a deal with Iran. That seems to have been good, but I am beyond my competence in that one.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  95. AaronB says:
    @Madhava reader
    Prompted by the hints at ancient India sageness here and there in your comment I went to check out your previous comments too.

    The one that struck me the most is the ingenious way you found to portray the intellectual decadence of the West where you said compared to good ole days Oxbridge thinkers more recent ones have lost a dimension of thinking.

    It is exactly that: the brain's left side has taken over, and what results are minds better than ever before at some things while blind to the rest: an hyper-rational but rationality-bound intellect.
    Rationality, a dimension of thought, risks to come to coincide with thought as a whole.

    Where I don't agree is where you see careless hedonism as the only way of life for the irreligiously minded and an hermit-like existence as something that will appeal only to the religiously minded.

    One can be an atheist and choose the life of hermits, and one can be a theist and still want to involve himself with the noisy carnival parade of social life, can't they?

    It also struck me that you speak of "reality" as a faith and things beyond the reach of our sensory-derived and mentally-constructed world which, as alien from humbleness as it's our distinctive mark to be we equate to the World.
    I guess those super-scientists wondering "how come we are alone in the universe" who don't suspect any kind of entities, living or not, can be "around us" but we can't detect them perhaps strike you as childish as they do me.

    You wouldn't believe how countless people who are otherwise more intelligent than I am have dismissed my hints at the (very likely) possibility and declared me a Big Nut.
    That's how they are to react when the Veil of Maya is imperiled by your comments.
    I think it's part of natural self-defense mechanisms. The huge drive to claim there is reality comes from the huge drive to claim that they themselves are (I think, therefore I am! If what I think isn't there, how am I sure I am?).

    I have no clue as to how it happened, but philosophers in ancient India realized much if not all of this (Madhava's Jivanmukti-viveka is a very good recapitulation of what they knew).
    Greek philosophy, which you say is the true philosophy, was taking the same path before Plato.
    But, how to say, it was making them too sad.
    Plato invented another world, where everything was like... like it gave great relief to believe it was. Aristotle invented the faith that reality was logical (while what is logical can't be but our mind's world we call reality), and all what has come since then in the West, making it the factor of world history and culture, has come from the Greek way of looking at the world (believing it logical thus believing we can modify it, organize it, direct it, and why not bring it to perfection. All what opposes these designs will be "evil", what enables them "good").

    We can say that the humble clear-minded Indian view, while much closer to truth, led them to inactivity and irrelevance, while the monumental Greek (and then, also, Judaic: see what Freud wrote on Moses) error led to by far the most monumental mundane outcomes -- from cultural to technological undisputed preminence -- .

    Free will was the most daring invention of Western philosophy.

    How come you

    And yet, there is a way out, if we wanted to take it.
     
    subscribe to it?

    Thanks for your interesting comment.

    Its quite possible to be an atheist hermit. Some people are extremely disillusioned without being particularly religious, like Ted Kaczynski. But seeing through the human farce tends to open one up to religious possibilities, at the very least. If you read the religious literature, at a certain stage on the path, after the death of the ego, its quite common to return to the “marketplace”, to share your liberating insight with the rest of humanity – who, of course and inevitably and always, reject and mock the message. But at that stage, the religious mystic has dissolved enough of his self to not mind the mortification.

    There really has been a “loss of dimension” in Western thinking over the past 50 years, and I don’t know how better to describe it. It’s not like we’re stupider, but there’s been a kind of “narrowing” of perspective, a massive deflation. Fewer and fewer elements are considered, and issues are seen from an ever narrower perspective. What we are seeing, really, is the final stages of the reductionist paradigm, which is rapidly reaching its last stage of absurdity.The intellectual history of the past 500 years in the West is the ever increasing expansion of reductionist thinking, but its yielding less and less power, more and more absurdity, and ever increasing alienation and despair, undermining societies that organize themselves according to it precepts. Like many things, the search for power seems ultimately to undermine itself – the sacrifices needed to gain power leads to nihilism, and thus ultimately to the loss of power.

    In hindsight, the Western quest for power always had a time-limit, and we are now approaching it.

    I am not in the least surprised that people find you crazy for suggesting there might be a “suprasensible” realm. That’s the standard response. Even though its philosophically unchallengeable, its a huge threat to convention, and it calls into question entire ways of life.

    The Greeks were problematic, I agree, and much that is wrong with the West can be traced back to them. But in contrast with later European philosophy, especially in the Anglo-sphere, they never completely lost sight of the true role of philosophy, which is about how to live. Socrates and the pre-socratics, and later the hellenistic philosophers, were, of course, the best in this regard. Plato’s philosophy has strong Eastern overtones, and the Western mystical tradition derives from neo-Platonism, and many scholars see an Eastern connection here. The similarity of early, pre-church Christianity to Buddhism is also apparent.

    Eastern philosophies and religions have very strong affinities to pre-modern and Medieval ways of thinking – the old West and East weren’t so different, after all. The real dichotomy is between the “modern” and the “traditional”, not so much East and West. Even the logical and practical Aristotle thought “techne” was the least important knowledge achievable by man, and placed “impractical” contemplation at the summit of human thought.

    The “humble and clear minded” Eastern approach can be usefully opposed to the “grandiose” element in the West, I agree. As you say, one leas to much mundane power, the other not so much – but it has led to personal transformation and bliss, which should be the true occupation of mankind. Power is a substitute satisfaction.

    Read More
    • Replies: @riddle
    when the area of 'religion' is addressed, why is it always confined to western and eastern
    rather than including the spiritual world of Native Americans and other aboriginal groups?
  96. @SolontoCroesus

    Wasn’t the German public guilty as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history?
     
    OK.

    The plot seems to be to remind the Polity that they have an obligation to know what their government is doing in their name.

    Polities have a responsibility to suss out the facts of situations rather than be manipulated into giving "manufactured consent."

    Restated: the public has an obligation to demand the truth, to examine it critically, and to base life-and-death decisions upon critically examined truths.

    Therefore, please support, with evidence as momentous as the claim, the assertion that "Germans/Hitler . . . committed unspeakable crimes . . . [and] implemented the greatest carnage ever in human history."

    If you cannot or do not provide evidence and critical analysis to support the claim that " the German public [and] Hitler [committed] unspeakable crimes . . . in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history," then you are committing the very act that is being argued against.

    That should trouble you.

    Because you rely on that sop, that self-righteous declaration, "the German public [and] Hitler [committed] unspeakable crimes . . . in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history;" and because you have completely escaped accountability for Allied participation in war crimes and crimes against humanity in that self-same war, and against the German people themselves, you are able to ease your conscience:

    "The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed: 'God, I thank you that I am not like other people--robbers, evildoers, adulterers--or even like this tax collector." -Luke 18, 11

    You are justified to kill with abandon, because you are not a sinner like those Germans.
    You are the good guys.


    For Americans the never ending war waged by their own government, which leaves them with no choice but to condone mass murder, is supposedly necessary to keep them safe.
     
    Support your charge against the German people.
    Or look at your own self/nation in a mirror.
    Or both.

    An excellent comment, SC! Fake News has been around for a long time, and victors have long rewritten history. Who will avenge the victims in Dresden?

    Read More
  97. AaronB says:
    @utu
    "Taboos will be different, the boundaries of permitted discourse will shift, but soon, what is morally permitted will begin to display a remarkable coincidence with the selfish interest of people in power."

    It is sad that such an outcome seems to be inevitable. So what is left there to do? Withdraw and tend your own garden like Voltaire's Candide? Or prepare for a new fight?

    Well, in some fashion the only sane option is to disengage from politics and the “world”, to not participate in a system that can never yield results, but can only recycle elites as values are inevitably co-opted by the power-hungry.

    The problem of co-optation is what makes it a farce. For instance, spiritual practices designed for the purpose of reducing ego and concern with success, like zen meditation, get co-opted by people obsessed with success as just one more method helping them work better. This happens to all large-scale social activities.

    It’s also why all spiritual traditions are hopeless about the “world” and recommend some kind of disengagement from it. Because the situation really is hopeless. The system feeds off of our participation. The only way to weaken it is to withdraw. If you “fight”, you are perpetuating and strengthening the system. In the end, “fighting” strengthens the power hungry elements just as much as “submitting” – “fighting” appears to transfer power, but in reality only recycles elites. It never produces lasting change. Its a paradox, but the only way to “fight” evil is to stop fighting. There is a third way – neither fight nor submit. It’s a false dichotomy that sees those two as the only options. A deeper perspective sees that fighting and submitting are actually both manifestations of the same impulse.

    Its why Jesus told us not to resist evil, and the Buddha said hate never ceases by hate, and why Nietzsche warned us that if we stare into abysses, abysses back stare into us, and we become monsters. The point is – you become what you fight. Its an old an inevitable law.

    This is a fine article, and it’s useful to point out the carnival like nature of the political shadow theater, but while most people here probably see it as a call to action, I see it as a launching pad to disengagement.

    Read More
  98. Alden says:
    @Anon
    That's 100% wrong. The Nazis were the largest party in Germany beginning in 1932 -- more than 40% of the vote.

    You are 1,000 percent wrong. Hitler was not elected he was appointed by the elected President Hindenberg. And the Nazi party was one of the smaller parties.

    You’ve been reading too much Jewish, FDR, Russian and Churchill propaganda.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932

    But I suppose all those sources reporting on this election are a Jewish plot?
  99. hobo says:
    @Quartermaster

    The presentation of ‘almost definitive’ findings by the joint investigation team under Dutch leadership has neither included clues supplied by jet fighter cannon holes in the wrecked fuselage nor eyewitness stories, which would make the government in Kiev the prime suspect.
     
    I didn't read anything past this. Ukraine had nothing to gain from the shootdown. Russia, OTOH, had everything to gain by doing it and trying to pin it on Ukraine. The investigation didn't show what you wanted to show. Too bad.

    Russia did it with a model the Buk missile that was never sold to Ukraine. The fighter that you idiots like to claim shot the Boeing down could get up to the cruising altitude where the airliner was flying. These things were pointed out time and again, yet you idiots just can't absorb the facts.

    Ukraine had nothing to gain from the shootdown

    But the scumbag oligarch Kolomoisky certainly did. The same Kolomoisky who funded and controlled the neo-Nazis; the same Kolomoisky who controlled the airport (Dnipropetrovsk) from which the order for flight diversion was issued;; the same Kolomoisky who scuttled a ceasefire accepted by Poroshenko; the same Kolomoisky who had vast interests in eastern Ukraine designated for resource exploitation; the same Kolomoisky whose empire was under attack by Yanukovich’s ‘family’; and finally the same Kolomoisky who had access to that specific model of Buk missile via his Georgian connections which also provided mercenaries and armaments for his neo-Nazi brigades.

    Perhaps its not as simple as a binary choice between Russia and Ukraine.

    Read More
  100. Blowback is a b***h.

    Rove and the thoroughly co-opted Anglophone media have effectively exposed their complicity in fraud.

    They reckoned without the internet, perhaps assuming its users did nothing but watch p**n.

    Belated attempts to deploy the net as a weapon (disinfo like Bellingcat) have essentially compounded the initial error.

    The net has made anyone who wishes to become an intelligence operative.

    The further effect has been to expose and largely discredit the operations of intelligence agencies – those that are nakedly political at any rate.

    The best example is the recent dossier on Trump – it was a matter of days before it was exposed as the work of an ex- British operative who hadn’t out his foot in Russia for years. The hacking claims were likewise discredited as they were made by a NATO employee, could not be verify or attributed with any confidence, and such information as was available, pointed to open/ source malware of Ukrainian origin.

    It will be interesting to see how long the net eludes full control – certainly censorship crackdowns are underway.

    My view is much of what has been dismissed as ‘tinfoil hattery’ is now at least entertained as in the realm of possibility.

    Probably the biggest change in public opinion has been much wider acceptance of false-flags: it is no longer a fringe concept.

    And that in turn had led to a dawning recognition that the terrorism unleashed in the Middle East is nowhere near as ‘spontaneous’ as hitherto believed.

    ‘War is a racket’ General Smedley Butler.

    That message is finally going mainstream.

    Read More
  101. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Alden
    You are 1,000 percent wrong. Hitler was not elected he was appointed by the elected President Hindenberg. And the Nazi party was one of the smaller parties.

    You've been reading too much Jewish, FDR, Russian and Churchill propaganda.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932

    But I suppose all those sources reporting on this election are a Jewish plot?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Alden
    Actually, yes, even middle school children are taught that Wikepedia is full of falsehoods. It's common knowledge that Wikepedia is not to be trusted about anything Only the ignorant and naive trust the information in Wikepedia. Since you trust the information in Wikepedia you must be ignorant and naive.

    Get yourself to a university library or the library of congress if you want to learn the truth about anything
  102. @AP
    Obviously everyone who is killed in Washington DC is the victim of a political conspiracy. Because DC is such a safe city.

    While you're at it, do you have a conspiracy-tale about this murder in DC?

    http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Connecticut-Congressional-Aide-Intern-Killed-Metro-Subway-DC-Washington-Kevin-Sutherland-Jim-Himes-311729741.html

    How does it fit into the web?

    Obviously everyone who is killed in Washington DC is the victim of a political conspiracy. Because DC is such a safe city.

    Well, Rich’s murder wasn’t a mugging. His cellphone, wallet and Rolex were all found on his body. Oh, and he was shot in the back.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Because nobody ever gets shot in the back:

    http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/01/man_shot_in_back_in_clevelands.html

    http://www.kens5.com/news/local/man-shot-in-back-at-east-side-motel-shooter-on-the-run/389851080

    I wonder what part those victims played in the DNC conspiracy?

    Interesting how the "hitman" in Rich's case didn't bother to make it look like a robbery. You live in a very exciting world.
  103. Che Guava says:
    @annamaria
    "The Guardian is particularly despicable."
    Agree. A scoundrel usurped the name of a virtuous person and this makes everybody wonder why the formerly reliable Guardian has been publishing propaganda trash. And it is true that the Guardian' comment section is a perfect censorship machine. The Soviet Union lookout for a dissent on steroids.

    Thanks, annamaria.

    I was going to say their system is imperfect because every thread, even if not controversial, is full of ‘This comment was deleted because it violated community standards.’ or similar words, but thought a little, and realised that is part of the game.

    The policy of portrait photos of their staff always being a sneer over the left shoulder and down the nose at the reader is quite funny.

    Lately, they have staff post begging comments in the comments threads at times.

    Stopping there, could go on.

    Regards.

    Read More
  104. annamaria says:
    @AP

    “Given Russia’s support of Assad, whose war has been far deadlier (100,000s of dead people deadleir) than Poroshenko’s, this is an odd complaint.”

    Now you imply that the ongoing 7 wars in the Middle East are somehow the responsibility of Russian federation. Please stop creating “new reality.” Also, you need to check the dates.
     
    I was clear in what I wrote and made no implication about "7 wars in the Middle East."

    Russia supports Assad in his fight against a mixture of domestic and foreign fighters. Death toll is 317,000-470,000, depending on estimates, in Syria. It's fine to support Assad in Syria and Russia does so. But if you do so, you look very strange complaining so bitterly about Poroshenko and the Kiev government whose war has a death toll of about 10,000.

    “Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.”

    Well, it is hard to see any resemblance between Ukrainian neo-Nazis, Chocolate King and such on one hand, and the highly educated founding fathers like Jefferson and Franklin (a renowned polymath) on the other hand.
     
    Nice attempt at deflection. I didn't ask if Poroshenko was comparable to Washington and Jefferson. Of course he isn't.

    I asked: Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine*

    Your refusal to answer this question strongly suggests that you admit that it was not. And thus, that neither was the revolution in Ukraine, given that the West's support for Ukraine's Revolution was not even close to being as extensive as was the French support for the American Revolution.

    But go ahead and try to change the subject again.

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today's money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America's independence.

    Actually I simply pointed out to the main thrust of your comparison of the current situation in Ukraine and the distant history of the US: You have been trying to compare the activists in the current Kiev government – the self-proclaimed neo-Nazis and the oligarchs such as Poroshenko (who continues making business in Russia) and Kolomojsky (a looter of Ukraine) and similar scum, with the highly educated (Franklin) and personally courageous (Washington) founding fathers. Moreover, you continued evoking the name of Genera Lafayette as if making a connection between the noble revolutionary and the ignoble ideologists from the Kagans’ clan as well as the operatives from CIA.
    Could you go back to reality instead of putting lipstick on a pig?

    http://journal-neo.org/2014/03/07/bbc-now-admits-armed-nazis-led/

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Actually I simply pointed out to the main thrust of your comparison of the current situation in Ukraine and the distant history of the US
     
    No you avoided and continue to avoid answering a simple question. Your refusal to do so is very telling.

    You have been trying to compare the activists in the current Kiev government – the self-proclaimed neo-Nazis and the oligarchs such as Poroshenko (who continues making business in Russia) and Kolomojsky (a looter of Ukraine) and similar scum, with the highly educated (Franklin) and personally courageous (Washington) founding fathers.
     
    Try to stop lying for a change.

    Let me repeat what I have already written to you:

    I didn’t ask if Poroshenko was comparable to Washington and Jefferson. Of course he isn’t.

    I asked: Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine*

    Your refusal to answer this question strongly suggests that you admit that it was not. And thus, that neither was the revolution in Ukraine, given that the West’s support for Ukraine’s Revolution was not even close to being as extensive as was the French support for the American Revolution.

    Will you answer the question finally? Or try to change the subject, or to lie, as usual, because the answer is not one that you would like.

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.
  105. AP says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    Obviously everyone who is killed in Washington DC is the victim of a political conspiracy. Because DC is such a safe city.
     
    Well, Rich's murder wasn't a mugging. His cellphone, wallet and Rolex were all found on his body. Oh, and he was shot in the back.

    Because nobody ever gets shot in the back:

    http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/01/man_shot_in_back_in_clevelands.html

    http://www.kens5.com/news/local/man-shot-in-back-at-east-side-motel-shooter-on-the-run/389851080

    I wonder what part those victims played in the DNC conspiracy?

    Interesting how the “hitman” in Rich’s case didn’t bother to make it look like a robbery. You live in a very exciting world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Because nobody ever gets shot in the back ...
     
    Where I come from, muggers do typically approach people from the front.

    I wonder what part those victims played in the DNC conspiracy?
     
    I don't know. What did they leak to Julian Assange? ;-)
  106. Miro23 says:

    As Van Wolferen says, choosing “not to go there” is quite an understandable reaction. Journalists, politicians, academics etc. have families and need their jobs and incomes and there’s always some superior/colleague who can gain points by exposing a troublemaking “conspiracy theorist”.

    If anything the system is too loose. In the heyday of Bolshevism there was no problem with “trutherism”. Citizens were encouraged to spy and report on one another, and rewarded for the effort, with any deviance being harshly punished and maybe leading to transportation and the Gulag.

    The problem for US “Totalitarianism Light” is surely that the Digital Age produces a sort of obligatory “Glasnost” with for example, a video of the straight down collapse of WTC Building 7 (no fire in sight) being just a few clicks away. The 21st Century narrative is really difficult to control. Ex-CIA agent Susan Lindauer (imprisoned for 5 years for revealing part of the fraud) gets 2 million+ views of her YouTube video “Extreme Prejudice” or ex-FBI employee Sibel Edmonds gets widespread readership for her self-published memoir showing FBI complicity. Equally, Mike Delaney’s video “Missing Links” is copied everywhere and there is even an organization of “Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth” that now has over 2000 professional members and organizes conferences throughout the US and abroad.

    A story like WMD is far too vulnerable to fact checking in an internet based information blizzard, so the only alternative has to be absolute power, with a rock solid totalitarian dictatorship (Emergency Regime), making full use of the conveniently introduced Patriot Act, Homeland Security and the NSA, and which was probably tried for on 9/11. Cheney was running an Emergency Regime on the day, and blocking communication with a very frustrated President Bush (deliberately) isolated in Florida.

    Unfortunately for the Deep State 9/11 didn’t work out. If it had, no one in the US would presently be questioning anything (with US detention camps fast filling up), so taking this as the reality, the DS has no option but to try again, andthis time successfully shut down US Democracy once and for all.

    If this is true, the MSM Putin/Russia campaign looks like the new WMD story, ready to support some False Flag faked Russian attack on the US, which may cleverly also remove Trump, and usher in the desired Emergency Regime, so it’s not really about Russia at all, but rather an automatic threatened US (nuclear) response and an automatic threatened Russian (nuclear) reply to produce the much desired Deep State/Neocon Emergency dictatorship. With their Regime securely in place, they can seriously get to work on the “Deplorables” and nuclear bomb Iran and anywhere else in the MENA that they feel like.

    Read More
  107. AP says:
    @annamaria
    Actually I simply pointed out to the main thrust of your comparison of the current situation in Ukraine and the distant history of the US: You have been trying to compare the activists in the current Kiev government - the self-proclaimed neo-Nazis and the oligarchs such as Poroshenko (who continues making business in Russia) and Kolomojsky (a looter of Ukraine) and similar scum, with the highly educated (Franklin) and personally courageous (Washington) founding fathers. Moreover, you continued evoking the name of Genera Lafayette as if making a connection between the noble revolutionary and the ignoble ideologists from the Kagans' clan as well as the operatives from CIA.
    Could you go back to reality instead of putting lipstick on a pig?
    http://journal-neo.org/2014/03/07/bbc-now-admits-armed-nazis-led/

    Actually I simply pointed out to the main thrust of your comparison of the current situation in Ukraine and the distant history of the US

    No you avoided and continue to avoid answering a simple question. Your refusal to do so is very telling.

    You have been trying to compare the activists in the current Kiev government – the self-proclaimed neo-Nazis and the oligarchs such as Poroshenko (who continues making business in Russia) and Kolomojsky (a looter of Ukraine) and similar scum, with the highly educated (Franklin) and personally courageous (Washington) founding fathers.

    Try to stop lying for a change.

    Let me repeat what I have already written to you:

    I didn’t ask if Poroshenko was comparable to Washington and Jefferson. Of course he isn’t.

    I asked: Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine*

    Your refusal to answer this question strongly suggests that you admit that it was not. And thus, that neither was the revolution in Ukraine, given that the West’s support for Ukraine’s Revolution was not even close to being as extensive as was the French support for the American Revolution.

    Will you answer the question finally? Or try to change the subject, or to lie, as usual, because the answer is not one that you would like.

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    I simply pointed out to the fact that history is made by people. You insist that the events of the American revolution (led by the specific individuals in America such as Franklin, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Lafayette ...), are akin to the current events in Ukraine (led by the specific individuals in Ukraine such as Poroshenko, Yatz, neo-Nazis, Nuland-Kagan, Brennan...). This is ridiculous. And stop insulting the memory of General Lafayette. - The former Director of CIA Mr. Brennan has never been in combat. I understand that you want to see a miracle of a bright future for Ukraine, but you are engaged in a creating of your reality right now. By the way, being upset does not excuse the hysterics and ungrounded accusations of lying that you permit yourself.
    And one more point: What kind of independence are you crying for Ukraine? It is an independent country. No need in gathering for a treaty in Paris.
  108. Mario64 says:
    @Alden
    Hitler was not elected. The office of chancellor which he held was not an elected office.
    According to the constitution of the time only the President was elected. Hindenburg was elected President. According to the constitution at the time, the President appointed Hitler as chancellor.

    The German political parties were similar to America's. The 2 major parties had about 90 percent of the vote. The rest of the votes were divided between 3 or 4 minor parties. The NAZI party was one of those minor parties that had a miniscule number of votes.

    Adolf Hitler’s rise to power (Wikipedia)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler%27s_rise_to_power

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

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_March_1933

    ….Through the late 1920s and early 1930s, the Nazis gathered enough electoral support to become the largest political party in the Reichstag, and Hitler’s blend of political acuity, deceptiveness and cunning converted the party’s non-majority but plurality status into effective governing power in the ailing Weimar Republic of 1933.

    …German election, May 1924 the party gained seats in the Reichstag, with 6.55% (1,918,329) voting for the Movement. In the German election, December 1924 the National Socialist Freedom Movement (NSFB) (Combination of the Deutschvölkische Freiheitspartei (DVFP) and the Nazi Party (NSDAP)) lost 18 seats, only holding on to 14 seats, with 3% (907,242) of the electorate voting for Hitler’s party.

    ….In the German election, May 1928 the Party achieved just 12 seats (2.6% of the vote) in the Reichstag. The highest provincial gain was again in Bavaria (5.11%), though in three areas the NSDAP failed to gain even 1% of the vote. Overall the NSDAP gained 2.63% (810,127) of the vote.

    [September 1930]…. Hitler’s party gained a shocking victory in the Reichstag, obtaining 107 seats (18.3%, 6,406,397 votes)

    [July 1932]… The elections resulted in great gains by the Nazi party, who with 230 seats for the first time became the largest party in parliament. (37.27%, 13,745,680 votes).

    [November 1932]… 196 seats. 33.09%, 11,737,021 votes

    [March 1933]… 288 seats. 43.91%, 17,277,180 votes

    Read More
  109. HdC says:
    @Cyrano
    Ukraine has been one of the beneficiaries of US ability to create a new reality. It’s a match made in heaven – on one side you have a country that has this magic ability to create new realities, and on the other side you have Ukraine who has problems accepting reality. After all, these are the same people who welcomed the Germans as liberators - with bouquets of flowers.

    Talking about confused people, how do you overlook a fact such as Hitler calling them untermensch and planning to apply generous euthanasia program to relieve the suffering of the Ukrainian land from some inferior Slavic genes and replacing them with superior German ones.

    After the experiences in the last 25 years no one disputes the ability of US to create a new reality. The problem is the reality the US are able to create is usually far, far worse than the reality which would have occurred if they didn’t intervene. Same thing for Ukraine, the reality that Putin offered them was far better, 15 billion dollars, plus half price on gas. I guess the “reasoning” in Ukraine went something like this: If Putin is offering us such a good deal, it must be because the US has something even better in store for us. Enjoy your new reality, Ukraine.

    “…a fact such as Hitler calling them untermensch and planning to apply generous euthanasia program to relieve the suffering of the Ukrainian land…”

    Please provide the source of your assertion. And no, comic books and warmed-over war propaganda does not count. HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    It looks like comic book sources is just about all that you can handle.
    , @Anon
    Why don't you indicate what sources you will accept. That will make this much easier.
  110. annamaria says:
    @AP

    Actually I simply pointed out to the main thrust of your comparison of the current situation in Ukraine and the distant history of the US
     
    No you avoided and continue to avoid answering a simple question. Your refusal to do so is very telling.

    You have been trying to compare the activists in the current Kiev government – the self-proclaimed neo-Nazis and the oligarchs such as Poroshenko (who continues making business in Russia) and Kolomojsky (a looter of Ukraine) and similar scum, with the highly educated (Franklin) and personally courageous (Washington) founding fathers.
     
    Try to stop lying for a change.

    Let me repeat what I have already written to you:

    I didn’t ask if Poroshenko was comparable to Washington and Jefferson. Of course he isn’t.

    I asked: Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine*

    Your refusal to answer this question strongly suggests that you admit that it was not. And thus, that neither was the revolution in Ukraine, given that the West’s support for Ukraine’s Revolution was not even close to being as extensive as was the French support for the American Revolution.

    Will you answer the question finally? Or try to change the subject, or to lie, as usual, because the answer is not one that you would like.

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    I simply pointed out to the fact that history is made by people. You insist that the events of the American revolution (led by the specific individuals in America such as Franklin, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Lafayette …), are akin to the current events in Ukraine (led by the specific individuals in Ukraine such as Poroshenko, Yatz, neo-Nazis, Nuland-Kagan, Brennan…). This is ridiculous. And stop insulting the memory of General Lafayette. – The former Director of CIA Mr. Brennan has never been in combat. I understand that you want to see a miracle of a bright future for Ukraine, but you are engaged in a creating of your reality right now. By the way, being upset does not excuse the hysterics and ungrounded accusations of lying that you permit yourself.
    And one more point: What kind of independence are you crying for Ukraine? It is an independent country. No need in gathering for a treaty in Paris.

    Read More
    • Agree: Cyrano
    • Replies: @AP
    (this wasn't sent as a reply for some reason)

    I simply pointed out to the fact that history is made by people
     
    I am neither asking about nor comparing people. I am discussing the specific claim that the events in Ukraine was a coup by the West because the West helped the revolutionaries in Ukraine. The nature of the people involved (whether they are stupid or brilliant, evil or good, etc.) is irrelevant with respect to whether the revolution was a foreign coup or not. A foreign coup could after all involve either good or bad people, stupid or smart ones. I am asking if you think the American revolution was a coup given that French support was far more extensive and critical for it, than was the West’s support for Ukraine’s revolutionaries, and you are trying to compare the personal characteristics of Brennan to Lafayette, or Poroshenko to Washington.

    You are trying to steer the discussion away from whether or not there a coup, to a comparison of personal characteristics. A very cheap demagogue’s trick.

    You insist that the events of the American revolution (led by the specific individuals in America such as Franklin, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Lafayette …), are akin to the current events in Ukraine (led by the specific individuals in Ukraine such as Poroshenko, Yatz, neo-Nazis, Nuland-Kagan, Brennan…)
     
    Don’t twist what I asked. The question is simple and direct.

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    Your refusal to answer this question (already for the third time!) strongly suggests that you admit that it was not. And thus, that neither was the revolution in Ukraine, given that the West’s support for Ukraine’s Revolution was not even close to being as extensive as was the French support for the American Revolution.

    Will you answer the question finally? Or try to change the subject, or to lie, as usual, because the answer is not one that you would like.

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.
  111. Cyrano says:
    @HdC
    "...a fact such as Hitler calling them untermensch and planning to apply generous euthanasia program to relieve the suffering of the Ukrainian land..."

    Please provide the source of your assertion. And no, comic books and warmed-over war propaganda does not count. HdC

    It looks like comic book sources is just about all that you can handle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    whatever.

    show YOUR sources, if you have any.

    or graciously conceded the point.

    that's how the rational person conducts himself.
    , @HdC
    http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/03/hitler-vs-the-untermenschen-myth-reality/

    Read it and weep. HdC
  112. @Jeff Davis
    "...these people surely have enough instruments at hand to bring him down before his asserted aim of Peace with Russia..."

    Conversely, as president, he has enough power to bring ***THEM*** down. He could put them all in the dock for war crimes. That would terminate their careers and life as they knew it.

    The establishment insiders -- the members of "the club" -- have relied on the unspoken rule that none of them are to be held accountable. Obama's famous "Look forward not back" is that rule in action. He wanted to be admitted to the club.

    Despite his wealth, Trump is not a club member. He's a blue collar billionaire. A bad boy mentored by Roy Cohn in the art of destroying one's adversaries. So, if "the Club" messes with him it may turn out that they picked the wrong guy to mess with. We shall see.

    Consider also that MIKE PENCE IS VICE PRESIDENT.

    Recall that Pence had just announced his intention to run for president when the flap over selling cupcakes to gays erupted in Indiana.

    At first, Pence supported the bakers: they should not be compelled to sell to homosexuals if it offended their values.

    Then, money-men, CEOs from other states swarmed over Indiana, threatening various events and sources of revenue and commerce in Indiana. Pence and the Indiana state legislature were forced to back down, in obeisance to the demands of out-of-state, unelected actors.

    Pence’s bid for the presidency was swept away in the debris.

    But He Came Back.

    And he is VP.

    That must really piss off the money men.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Seamus Padraig

    Pence’s bid for the presidency was swept away in the debris. But He Came Back. And he is VP. That must really piss off the money men.
     
    Not really. If they can control Pence once, they can control him twice.
  113. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer

    [We're very pleased to run this provocative new piece by Karel van Wolferen, who has spent decades as one of Holland's most distinguished international journalists.]

    This is not ironical or humorous. It’s just an act of courtesy on Unz’s part, considering Mr. Wolferen isn’t an habitual contributor, and how he is to be thanked for his contribution much — due his intellectual status and the fact, also, he is not a professional contrarian, so he is more likely to meet discomfort for taking anti-establishment stances.

    Mr. Wolferen, you are maybe the first one to notice that the recurrency of certain details (they are more than one) from terrorist attack to terrorist attack may have an element of mockery to it. I had thought that within myself but never heard anyone else say it.

    Read More
  114. @AP
    Because nobody ever gets shot in the back:

    http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2017/01/man_shot_in_back_in_clevelands.html

    http://www.kens5.com/news/local/man-shot-in-back-at-east-side-motel-shooter-on-the-run/389851080

    I wonder what part those victims played in the DNC conspiracy?

    Interesting how the "hitman" in Rich's case didn't bother to make it look like a robbery. You live in a very exciting world.

    Because nobody ever gets shot in the back …

    Where I come from, muggers do typically approach people from the front.

    I wonder what part those victims played in the DNC conspiracy?

    I don’t know. What did they leak to Julian Assange? ;-)

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Because nobody ever gets shot in the back …

    Where I come from, muggers do typically approach people from the front.
     

    As with the shootings I provided you links to, people get shot in various places, from the front and back.

    I wonder what part those victims played in the DNC conspiracy?

    I don’t know. What did they leak to Julian Assange?
     

    So if anything bad happens to a leaker, in your world it must be part of a conspiracy. Shot in one of America's most homicide-ridden cities? A DNC assassin. If the guy had been hit by a bus, the driver must have been a covert DNC assassin. If he was on a plane that went down - a DNC operation. If he came down with leukemia - he was infected with it by the DNC.

    Makes for an exciting world to live in, I suppose. More exciting than the real one, certainly.

    I guess in your world, the fact that nothing was taken from the guy (which would have been the obvious thing to do, if one wanted it to look like a robbery) was part of the plan, so it wouldn't look "too" staged, right?

    , @Alden
    It's almost always a team of 3. One is in front, one in the back and one driving the car.
    If it's two, they drive around looking for pedestrians. When they spot a victim, one gets out about a block behind an commits the mugging while the other stays in the car ready to take off the second the mugger rubs back with the loot.
    The reason the mugger gets off a block behind the victim is so the victim won't hear the car.
  115. @SolontoCroesus
    Consider also that MIKE PENCE IS VICE PRESIDENT.

    Recall that Pence had just announced his intention to run for president when the flap over selling cupcakes to gays erupted in Indiana.

    At first, Pence supported the bakers: they should not be compelled to sell to homosexuals if it offended their values.

    Then, money-men, CEOs from other states swarmed over Indiana, threatening various events and sources of revenue and commerce in Indiana. Pence and the Indiana state legislature were forced to back down, in obeisance to the demands of out-of-state, unelected actors.

    Pence's bid for the presidency was swept away in the debris.

    But He Came Back.

    And he is VP.

    That must really piss off the money men.

    Pence’s bid for the presidency was swept away in the debris. But He Came Back. And he is VP. That must really piss off the money men.

    Not really. If they can control Pence once, they can control him twice.

    Read More
  116. Cyrano says:
    1738901

    By what stretch of the imagination was the Maidan coup a revolution? How does replacement of one corrupt government with another by violent means qualify as a “Revolution”? Because US liked it (and founded, and instigated it)? I thought that revolution means replacement of one type of governance with another – usually more advanced one. But maybe my definition differs from yours.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    I think you are right on this Cyrano.

    There were two anti democratic "coups" that occurred in 2014 ..... one in Egypt and one in the Ukraine.

    If both Morsi and Yanukovytch were found wanting by their own people, the next election cycle would have displaced them both, democratically, with a preferred leader of "their" choosing.


    In both the Ukraine and Egypt, this never happened.

    The existing governments in both countries were ousted violently, and new leaders were imposed on the people.

    The post coup" elections" which occurred , were mostly for show.

    Neither had anything in common with the American Revolution or, for that matter, the will of the people.

    , @AP

    By what stretch of the imagination was the Maidan coup a revolution?
     
    Let's stick to the original question about whether or not the revolution was a coup or a popular revolt. So:

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    You get points for a more clever attempt at diversion than annamaria's. But it is still an attempt to avoid the question.


    How does replacement of one corrupt government with another by violent means qualify as a “Revolution"
     
    Definition of revolution

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/revolution

    "A forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system"

    I don't see corruption as a qualifier there.

    A government of largely ethnic Russian oligarchs based in Donbas, seeking in the end to integrate Ukraine with Russia, was overthrown and replaced by a new one composed more of ethnic Ukrainians with a power base elsewhere in the country, seeking to integrate Ukraine with the West. The old ruling parties were banned (the Party of Regions was renamed and still survives, but the Communists are still gone), different ones are in power.

    If you think nothing substantial changed, then why do the pro-Russians complain about it?

    But again, the issue is - was this a foreign coup (as you claim) or a popular native revolt. If a foreign coup simply because the West took a side and helped, well:

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

  117. Agent76 says:

    Sep 5, 2016 9/11 Suspects: Rudy Giuliani

    Mayor Giuliani oversaw the illegal destruction of the 9/11 crime scene and is criminally liable for the deaths of hundreds of emergency workers for not passing on prior warnings about the collapses of the Twin Towers. It is no wonder, then, that the Fire Department of New York so passionately detest Giuliani for his actions in disgracing their fallen brothers and covering up the 9/11 crime.

    https://youtu.be/Cl85JSvDmsA

    Read More
  118. joe webb says:
    @Anonymous

    Every time people are made to take off their belts and shoes – to stick only to the least inane instances – they are reminded: yes, we can do this to you! Half of Boston or all of France can be placed under undeclared martial law to tell people: yes, we have you under full control!
     
    The Womens (so-called) Protest raised "Yes, we can do this to you . . . Yes, we have you under full control" to another level: masses of women made and wore pink horns, voluntarily signifying that they had approved of the desecrating activities of a profane group of Russian vandals.

    And that they endorse cuckolding their fathers, husbands, brothers.

    Those hats are horns, the horns of a cuckold.

    Those women willingly and gleefully self-controlled to cuckold the male of the species.

    The women's protest rally was an international celebration of emasculation.

    good.

    Read More
  119. Anonymous says: • Disclaimer
    @Cyrano
    It looks like comic book sources is just about all that you can handle.

    whatever.

    show YOUR sources, if you have any.

    or graciously conceded the point.

    that’s how the rational person conducts himself.

    Read More
  120. joe webb says:
    @AP

    “To characterize this as a Western “coup”, simply because the West provided support and encouragement, is to demonstrate the lack of credibility of the person describing it as a coup.”
    You mean Friedman of Stratford?
     
    He lost credibility when he claimed that. Of course, he also described it as a revolution and an uprising and has made many other statements on which he can be judged. The author of this article, meanwhile, just has "coup", Ukraine shooting down the jet, and a 9-11 conspiracy theory as demonstrations of his "knowledge."

    If the Kievan junta was interested in the well-being of Ukrainians at large, then the barbarity of the Kiev-initiated civil war (immediately after the arrival of Brennan) would not happen
     
    Given Russia's support of Assad, whose war has been far deadlier (100,000s of dead people deadleir) than Poroshenko's, this is an odd complaint.

    Junta is another ridiculous word to use here, like coup.

    The US is fine with federalism, as well as Switzerland.
     
    The "federalism" that the mix of unelected armed pro-Russian fighters (many of whom were not locals but foreign citizens) in Donbas demanded was nothing like the federalism within the USA. American states do not have veto power over national decisions and are not allowed to avoid national trade deals or to make their own.

    Going back to the statement that there was no coup d’etat (that Ukraine was not “handled”)
     
    Answer the question I asked you. France sent thousands of soldiers and a French general to America during the Revolution. Its navy blockaded the USA and contributed to the critical American victory at Yorktown. The final peace treaty was signed in Paris.

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.

    What proud nation would allow a fraudulent American of Ukrainian descent to run its finances?
     
    Just as plenty of Jews from outside Israel have positions in Israel, or a Latvian-American ruled Latvia, so a Ukrainian-American was finance minister of Ukraine. It's unfortunate she did not become PM.

    What proud nation would allow a foreigner on a run from his native country to become appointed as a governor of an important region (Odessa?
     
    When a Russian guy who moved to to Ukraine when he was in his thirties, was PM of the entire country, he was overthrown. Somehow you were fine with his rule.

    Worse than a Georgian governor is foreign warlords like "Motorola" running around killing citizens of the country he has moved to. You don't seem to have a problem with Assad violently taking care of this problem in his own country, but you do when Ukraine's president does so (on a much milder more humane scale, moreover).

    The ongoing Ukrainian tragedy… Sad.
     
    We know you are sad because you lost. So the best you can do is gloat about any stumbles afterward.

    I am interested in your overall view of Ukraine/Russia. I do not claim to know much about it, and just assume it is a national issue. thanks, Joe Webb

    Read More
  121. AP says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    Because nobody ever gets shot in the back ...
     
    Where I come from, muggers do typically approach people from the front.

    I wonder what part those victims played in the DNC conspiracy?
     
    I don't know. What did they leak to Julian Assange? ;-)

    Because nobody ever gets shot in the back …

    Where I come from, muggers do typically approach people from the front.

    As with the shootings I provided you links to, people get shot in various places, from the front and back.

    I wonder what part those victims played in the DNC conspiracy?

    I don’t know. What did they leak to Julian Assange?

    So if anything bad happens to a leaker, in your world it must be part of a conspiracy. Shot in one of America’s most homicide-ridden cities? A DNC assassin. If the guy had been hit by a bus, the driver must have been a covert DNC assassin. If he was on a plane that went down – a DNC operation. If he came down with leukemia – he was infected with it by the DNC.

    Makes for an exciting world to live in, I suppose. More exciting than the real one, certainly.

    I guess in your world, the fact that nothing was taken from the guy (which would have been the obvious thing to do, if one wanted it to look like a robbery) was part of the plan, so it wouldn’t look “too” staged, right?

    Read More
  122. alexander says:
    @Cyrano
    By what stretch of the imagination was the Maidan coup a revolution? How does replacement of one corrupt government with another by violent means qualify as a “Revolution”? Because US liked it (and founded, and instigated it)? I thought that revolution means replacement of one type of governance with another – usually more advanced one. But maybe my definition differs from yours.

    I think you are right on this Cyrano.

    There were two anti democratic “coups” that occurred in 2014 ….. one in Egypt and one in the Ukraine.

    If both Morsi and Yanukovytch were found wanting by their own people, the next election cycle would have displaced them both, democratically, with a preferred leader of “their” choosing.

    In both the Ukraine and Egypt, this never happened.

    The existing governments in both countries were ousted violently, and new leaders were imposed on the people.

    The post coup” elections” which occurred , were mostly for show.

    Neither had anything in common with the American Revolution or, for that matter, the will of the people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    I don't know about Egypt and won't comment about it, but your bringing it up here suggests that it is a demagogues' attempt at diversion.

    If both Morsi and Yanukovytch were found wanting by their own people, the next election cycle would have displaced them both, democratically, with a preferred leader of “their” choosing.
     
    Because Yanukovich would have allowed free and fair elections. Because he willingly would have handed off power to political parties that had promised to investigate and prosecute him. After already having fixed the 2012 election rules in order to keep the people from power.

    If you believe that you will believe anything.


    The existing governments in both countries were ousted violently, and new leaders were imposed on the people.
     
    The new leaders in Ukraine were the ones who had won the popular vote in 2012 but were shut out of power by new rules Yanukovich had imposed, designed specifically to prevent them from getting into power.

    So much for "imposed" on the "people."


    The post coup” elections” which occurred , were mostly for show.
     
    Were the previous ones also mostly for show? Or only the ones whose results you don't like.

    The results of the new election were about what one would expect given the loss of Crimea and urban Donbas, areas that had been the center of pro-Russian voting and which were no longer taking part.


    Neither had anything in common with the American Revolution or, for that matter, the will of the people.
     
    Well, the people who came to power after Maidan were the same ones who had won the popular vote in the previous national election. The same ones who were also leading in presidential polls. Polls at the time of Maidan showed a plurality of support for it nationwide (41% for, 25% against, rest undecided or supportive of neither side) with majority support in the West and the Center of the country. It was a popular revolt in Ukraine's west and center, against a government with much less national support and whose support was concentrated on the eastern and southern fringes.

    But I suppose you have your own definition of "will of the people."

  123. AP says:
    @annamaria
    I simply pointed out to the fact that history is made by people. You insist that the events of the American revolution (led by the specific individuals in America such as Franklin, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Lafayette ...), are akin to the current events in Ukraine (led by the specific individuals in Ukraine such as Poroshenko, Yatz, neo-Nazis, Nuland-Kagan, Brennan...). This is ridiculous. And stop insulting the memory of General Lafayette. - The former Director of CIA Mr. Brennan has never been in combat. I understand that you want to see a miracle of a bright future for Ukraine, but you are engaged in a creating of your reality right now. By the way, being upset does not excuse the hysterics and ungrounded accusations of lying that you permit yourself.
    And one more point: What kind of independence are you crying for Ukraine? It is an independent country. No need in gathering for a treaty in Paris.

    (this wasn’t sent as a reply for some reason)

    I simply pointed out to the fact that history is made by people

    I am neither asking about nor comparing people. I am discussing the specific claim that the events in Ukraine was a coup by the West because the West helped the revolutionaries in Ukraine. The nature of the people involved (whether they are stupid or brilliant, evil or good, etc.) is irrelevant with respect to whether the revolution was a foreign coup or not. A foreign coup could after all involve either good or bad people, stupid or smart ones. I am asking if you think the American revolution was a coup given that French support was far more extensive and critical for it, than was the West’s support for Ukraine’s revolutionaries, and you are trying to compare the personal characteristics of Brennan to Lafayette, or Poroshenko to Washington.

    You are trying to steer the discussion away from whether or not there a coup, to a comparison of personal characteristics. A very cheap demagogue’s trick.

    You insist that the events of the American revolution (led by the specific individuals in America such as Franklin, Washington, Madison, Hamilton, Lafayette …), are akin to the current events in Ukraine (led by the specific individuals in Ukraine such as Poroshenko, Yatz, neo-Nazis, Nuland-Kagan, Brennan…)

    Don’t twist what I asked. The question is simple and direct.

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    Your refusal to answer this question (already for the third time!) strongly suggests that you admit that it was not. And thus, that neither was the revolution in Ukraine, given that the West’s support for Ukraine’s Revolution was not even close to being as extensive as was the French support for the American Revolution.

    Will you answer the question finally? Or try to change the subject, or to lie, as usual, because the answer is not one that you would like.

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    Read More
  124. AP says:
    @Cyrano
    By what stretch of the imagination was the Maidan coup a revolution? How does replacement of one corrupt government with another by violent means qualify as a “Revolution”? Because US liked it (and founded, and instigated it)? I thought that revolution means replacement of one type of governance with another – usually more advanced one. But maybe my definition differs from yours.

    By what stretch of the imagination was the Maidan coup a revolution?

    Let’s stick to the original question about whether or not the revolution was a coup or a popular revolt. So:

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    You get points for a more clever attempt at diversion than annamaria’s. But it is still an attempt to avoid the question.

    How does replacement of one corrupt government with another by violent means qualify as a “Revolution”

    Definition of revolution

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/revolution

    “A forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system”

    I don’t see corruption as a qualifier there.

    A government of largely ethnic Russian oligarchs based in Donbas, seeking in the end to integrate Ukraine with Russia, was overthrown and replaced by a new one composed more of ethnic Ukrainians with a power base elsewhere in the country, seeking to integrate Ukraine with the West. The old ruling parties were banned (the Party of Regions was renamed and still survives, but the Communists are still gone), different ones are in power.

    If you think nothing substantial changed, then why do the pro-Russians complain about it?

    But again, the issue is – was this a foreign coup (as you claim) or a popular native revolt. If a foreign coup simply because the West took a side and helped, well:

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    Or how about this: was the removal from power of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein a:
    1. Revolution
    2. A coup
    3. A naked aggression

    ( I saw on TV the Americans were wearing uniforms, so I guess it’s not a naked foreign aggression)

    In order to qualify as a revolution, violent overthrow of government is not enough. REVOLUTION implies changes for the better. To revolutionize something – to bring new and improved version of something. And it has to be indigenous.

    It seems that imagination is not one of your strongest suits – is it now? If a revolution doesn’t bring progress – than it’s a regression. If it’s neither progress nor regression – then I guess it’s nothing. Which is what Ukraine got. Nothing.

    In my book even the American “revolution” doesn’t really qualify as a revolution. Why? Well in 1776 America was part of the British Empire, a piece of that country. A change of government for the better did occur, but only on part of its territory. In other words the king was still there after the “revolution” ended. The monarchy survived the revolution. It was merely a war of independence from colonial rule. That’s about it.

  125. annamaria says:

    “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.” There was a US-sponsored coup d’etat in Ukraine in 2014.
    Similar to a coup d’etat in Iran: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d’état
    and Chile: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_Chilean_coup_d’état
    You may want to check the wikipedia re other places

    Read More
  126. AP says:
    @alexander
    I think you are right on this Cyrano.

    There were two anti democratic "coups" that occurred in 2014 ..... one in Egypt and one in the Ukraine.

    If both Morsi and Yanukovytch were found wanting by their own people, the next election cycle would have displaced them both, democratically, with a preferred leader of "their" choosing.


    In both the Ukraine and Egypt, this never happened.

    The existing governments in both countries were ousted violently, and new leaders were imposed on the people.

    The post coup" elections" which occurred , were mostly for show.

    Neither had anything in common with the American Revolution or, for that matter, the will of the people.

    I don’t know about Egypt and won’t comment about it, but your bringing it up here suggests that it is a demagogues’ attempt at diversion.

    If both Morsi and Yanukovytch were found wanting by their own people, the next election cycle would have displaced them both, democratically, with a preferred leader of “their” choosing.

    Because Yanukovich would have allowed free and fair elections. Because he willingly would have handed off power to political parties that had promised to investigate and prosecute him. After already having fixed the 2012 election rules in order to keep the people from power.

    If you believe that you will believe anything.

    The existing governments in both countries were ousted violently, and new leaders were imposed on the people.

    The new leaders in Ukraine were the ones who had won the popular vote in 2012 but were shut out of power by new rules Yanukovich had imposed, designed specifically to prevent them from getting into power.

    So much for “imposed” on the “people.”

    The post coup” elections” which occurred , were mostly for show.

    Were the previous ones also mostly for show? Or only the ones whose results you don’t like.

    The results of the new election were about what one would expect given the loss of Crimea and urban Donbas, areas that had been the center of pro-Russian voting and which were no longer taking part.

    Neither had anything in common with the American Revolution or, for that matter, the will of the people.

    Well, the people who came to power after Maidan were the same ones who had won the popular vote in the previous national election. The same ones who were also leading in presidential polls. Polls at the time of Maidan showed a plurality of support for it nationwide (41% for, 25% against, rest undecided or supportive of neither side) with majority support in the West and the Center of the country. It was a popular revolt in Ukraine’s west and center, against a government with much less national support and whose support was concentrated on the eastern and southern fringes.

    But I suppose you have your own definition of “will of the people.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    Hi AP,

    I do believe that Yanukovytch proved to be a very corrupt leader, I think this is quite true, but he was elected democratically, at least this is my understanding.

    I think there was pressure put on him to step down before his term was up,which he agreed to do, and there was also an offer made to launch new elections, on a much earlier cycle.

    Those election could (and would) have been certified by an independent third party.

    It was at this time that vested interests "outside" the Ukraine (namely Victoria Nuland, Mr. Kagan and a whole coterie of "regime change" Neocons) saw this as a perfect opportunity to swoop in and take Kiev.

    So they did.

    The result was the violent "Maidan coup" where we installed "our man " Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister.

    Who was placed in power by our Neocons ....not elected.

    I think this is ,more or less, what happened. No ?
  127. alexander says:
    @AP
    I don't know about Egypt and won't comment about it, but your bringing it up here suggests that it is a demagogues' attempt at diversion.

    If both Morsi and Yanukovytch were found wanting by their own people, the next election cycle would have displaced them both, democratically, with a preferred leader of “their” choosing.
     
    Because Yanukovich would have allowed free and fair elections. Because he willingly would have handed off power to political parties that had promised to investigate and prosecute him. After already having fixed the 2012 election rules in order to keep the people from power.

    If you believe that you will believe anything.


    The existing governments in both countries were ousted violently, and new leaders were imposed on the people.
     
    The new leaders in Ukraine were the ones who had won the popular vote in 2012 but were shut out of power by new rules Yanukovich had imposed, designed specifically to prevent them from getting into power.

    So much for "imposed" on the "people."


    The post coup” elections” which occurred , were mostly for show.
     
    Were the previous ones also mostly for show? Or only the ones whose results you don't like.

    The results of the new election were about what one would expect given the loss of Crimea and urban Donbas, areas that had been the center of pro-Russian voting and which were no longer taking part.


    Neither had anything in common with the American Revolution or, for that matter, the will of the people.
     
    Well, the people who came to power after Maidan were the same ones who had won the popular vote in the previous national election. The same ones who were also leading in presidential polls. Polls at the time of Maidan showed a plurality of support for it nationwide (41% for, 25% against, rest undecided or supportive of neither side) with majority support in the West and the Center of the country. It was a popular revolt in Ukraine's west and center, against a government with much less national support and whose support was concentrated on the eastern and southern fringes.

    But I suppose you have your own definition of "will of the people."

    Hi AP,

    I do believe that Yanukovytch proved to be a very corrupt leader, I think this is quite true, but he was elected democratically, at least this is my understanding.

    I think there was pressure put on him to step down before his term was up,which he agreed to do, and there was also an offer made to launch new elections, on a much earlier cycle.

    Those election could (and would) have been certified by an independent third party.

    It was at this time that vested interests “outside” the Ukraine (namely Victoria Nuland, Mr. Kagan and a whole coterie of “regime change” Neocons) saw this as a perfect opportunity to swoop in and take Kiev.

    So they did.

    The result was the violent “Maidan coup” where we installed “our man ” Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister.

    Who was placed in power by our Neocons ….not elected.

    I think this is ,more or less, what happened. No ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    First - sorry for the snappy tone.

    I do believe that Yanukovytch proved to be a very corrupt leader, I think this is quite true, but he was elected democratically, at least this is my understanding.
     
    Correct. He was indeed elected democratically. He won a narrow election (49% to 45.5% in a two-person race, after the runoff). This is the part that those who oppose Maidan always mention. They ignore the rest, however:

    - Yanukovich won with limited powers. He was facing an elected, Opposition-led parliament.

    - After winning, through a combination of bribes and threats he "flipped" the parliament, making it a Yanukovich-controlled one. This changeover wasn't done through new elections. So he essentially annulled the previous election results.

    - Through bribes and threats he got inconvenient Constitutional Court members to resign and replaced them with loyalists from his home town (like the judge who vacated his assault conviction)

    - The new parliament and new court then expanded the Presidential powers, delayed the parliamentary election by a year, and changed the election rules specifically in order to make it harder for the Opposition to win new elections. It made as its prime minister a Russian who moved from Russia to Ukraine in the 1980s when he was already in his mid-thirties.

    So, the people elected a president who was supposed to have limited powers and to have been constrained by an Opposition parliament. But, without any new elections or referendums, they ended up with a guy in total control of all branches of government.

    He then pursued his agenda, dividing the country's economy amongst his cronies, while throwing bones to his constituents who were largely non-Ukrainians (Russian as official second language in certain states).

    In the 2012 elections, the Opposition scored a decisive popular vote victory. If the rules had been like they had been in 2010, they would have controlled the parliament. But thanks to the elections changes, they were shut out of power despite winning the vote. These are the parties who took over the country after the Maidan revolution.

    The presidential election was about a year away. Two opposition candidates were leading him by double-digits in the polls. Yanukovich passed a law that made one candidate ineligible for running (it was a new residency law banning people who had lived abroad too long from becoming president - this candidate, the boxer Klitschko, had lived and trained in Germany). The other had his offices raided by the police. Both of these candidates were active on the side of the Maidan revolution.

    An analogy to the USA - this would be like Obama barely winning an election and being faced with an elected Republican congress. He would the get the Supreme Court's conservatives to resign and replacing them with some corrupt local Chicago judges, without new election force the congress to flip Democratic and make a Mexican immigrant the new speaker of the House/Senate Majority leader (Ukraine's legislature is unicameral). With all three branches of government fully under his control, he would then pursue a divisive agenda as his popularity diminishes. Election rules would be fixed to make it impossible for the other side to win elections.

    America's system is designed to prevent something like this from happening. Ukraine's didn't do so.

    I think there was pressure put on him to step down before his term was up,which he agreed to do, and there was also an offer made to launch new elections, on a much earlier cycle
     
    After he lost control of the country through mass unrest he agreed to move up presidential elections in order to placate the protests. This was widely and credibly viewed in Ukraine as an attempt to either wait out the protests while shoring up and beefing up security (replacing police and military who had wavered in their loyalty, bringing more Russians from Crimea into Kiev, etc.) to be better prepared for a violent "rematch", and an opportunity to steal as much as possible/destroy incriminating evidence for the flight to Russia if need be. Given his established record of behavior, it was taken for granted that Yanukovich wasn't acting in good faith.

    The result was the violent “Maidan coup” where we installed “our man ” Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister...Who was placed in power by our Neocons ….not elected.
     
    Yatseniuk was the guy in charge of the largest Opposition Party. He would have been PM had the 2012 election been fair (remember, the Opposition had won the popular vote in that election but the new rules kept them out of power). That might be why Nuland was pushing for him to become PM in the tape.

    So he was "elected" in 2012. After the revolution another election was run and he continued to be PM based on the results of that election (his party came in a close 2nd place but was in coalition with the winning party). Pro-Russians will say that the new election wasn't fair because the Communists were banned. Well, if you look at the electoral map you'll see that without Crimea and Donbas the pro-Russian side had zero chance of winning anyways.

    As for installed - sorry, we did not send troops there. Maybe the French installed Washington? They actually did send troops.
    , @Seamus Padraig

    I think there was pressure put on him to step down before his term was up,which he agreed to do, and there was also an offer made to launch new elections, on a much earlier cycle ... Those election could (and would) have been certified by an independent third party.
     
    This is one of several weaknesses in AP's argument that Yanukovich 'would never have relinquished power voluntarily'. In fact, it poses him with a fatal dilemma:

    A.) Either Yanukovich did indeed step down voluntarily in February 2014, three months before the election he had scheduled for May 2014, and full year and three months before Ukraine's regularly scheduled presidential elections were to have occurred. So if Yanukovich's departure ahead of schedule was voluntary, then AP's assertion that he would never have departed voluntarily has been proven false. Or ...

    B.) Yanukovich's ahead-of-schedule departure was not voluntary at all. And since there was no impeachment proceeding--the only lawful way to remove a president in Ukraine--his 'ouster' fits the legal description of a coup d'état. And if he was forced out in 2014, the US/EU could have just as easily been forced him out in 2015, if it were determined that he had tampered with the elections.

    As it happens, B was the case. We know this because, a few days after he was forced out of Kiev, Yanukovich turned up in Kharkov (I think it was) and told a television audience that he had not resigned and was still president.

    But either way, AP is backed into a corner and his argument is demolished.

  128. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @HdC
    "...a fact such as Hitler calling them untermensch and planning to apply generous euthanasia program to relieve the suffering of the Ukrainian land..."

    Please provide the source of your assertion. And no, comic books and warmed-over war propaganda does not count. HdC

    Why don’t you indicate what sources you will accept. That will make this much easier.

    Read More
  129. CanSpeccy says: • Website

    And, true enough, if you do go there and bear witness publicly to what you see, you may well be devoured; your career in many government positions, the media and even academia is likely to come to an end.

    Your career in the media will come to an end because the media, which include Hollywood and the book publishing industry, are dominated by a couple of dozen corporations that use their control of information and disinformation as a means to increase their own power and profit. Naturally, these corporations have no interest in providing a megaphone for truth-tellers.

    The US and its vassals differ from Russia and its vassals in the era of the Soviet Union in that the people of the West have lived under the delusion that the news they are fed is delivered to them by a free press, not forced upon them by a totalitarian governing elite, i.e., in the West, a political leadership that is sold out to the corporate interest.

    When the people of the Soviet Union quit believing the lies delivered to them by state organs of news dissemination and education, the system collapsed. Now the people of the West have quit believing the lies, and the system is at the verge of collapse.

    The loss of faith in the media now experienced in the West is largely due to the emergence of the alternative media, which spin the news in ways that contradict the MSM. The future of “Western democracy” will, therefore, hinge on the response of Western elites to the alt media, which constitutes a genuinely free, if poorly financed, press.

    One evident reaction is the attempt to hobble or outlaw the alt media as we see in collusion in censorship between Facebook’s Zuckerberg and Frau Merkel. Another approach has been the attempt of the MSM to brand the alt media “fake news,” a label that has amusingly rebounded upon the MSM.

    If the emergent free press cannot be destroyed, the Western nations will experience an era of genuine mass democracy, or populism, to use the term of denigration currently deployed by our threatened elites.

    Read More
  130. HdC says:
    @Cyrano
    It looks like comic book sources is just about all that you can handle.
    Read More
  131. @Mario64
    Prof. Van Wolferen,
    it looks like you have never read Walter Lippmann's work, political science's milestones Public Opinion and Phantom Public. He made very clear that any political power, either democracy or tyranny, stands on the bedrock of MANUFACTURING CONSENT.

    The real question that should be asked is why that happens and always happened. The answer is that it takes two to tango and for what concerns public awareness about politics "...The public will arrive in the middle of the third act and will leave before the last curtain, having stayed just long enough perhaps to decide who is the hero and who the villain of the piece. Yet usually that judgment will necessarily be made apart from the intrinsic merits, on the basis of a sample of behavior, an aspect of a situation, by very rough external evidence…" (The Phantom Public)

    Spin doctors' success is made possible thanks to the public's inherent complicity.
    "What is modern propaganda? For many, it is the lies of a totalitarian state. In the 1970s, I met Leni Riefenstahl and asked her about her epic films that glorified the Nazis. Using revolutionary camera and lighting techniques, she produced a documentary form that mesmerized Germans; her "Triumph of the Will" cast Hitler’s spell.
    She told me that the “messages” of her films were dependent not on “orders from above”, but on the “submissive void” of the German public. Did that include the liberal, educated bourgeoisie? “Everyone,” she said.
    " (John Pilger - New Statesman - March 14th 2013) http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/politics/2013/03/new-propaganda-liberal-new-slavery-digital

    Manufacturing consent in order to be effective needs what Étienne de La Boétie in his “Discours de la servitude volontaire” (Discourse on Voluntary Servitude) defines as the “… secret de toute domination: faire participer les dominés à leur domination” (…the secret of all domination: to make the dominated participate to their own domination).

    But even when "destabilizing truth" comes out, look at what is the reaction of the public.
    On May 12, 1996, Madeleine Albright (then U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations) appeared on a 60 Minutes segment in which Lesley Stahl asked her “We have heard that half a million children have died. I mean, that’s more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?” and Albright replied “I think this is a very hard choice, but the price, we think the price is worth it.” Albright wrote later that Saddam Hussein, not the sanctions, was to blame. She criticized Stahl’s segment as “amount[ing] to Iraqi propaganda”; said that her question was a loaded question;[63][64] wrote “I had fallen into a trap and said something I did not mean”;[65] and regretted coming “across as cold-blooded and cruel”.[66] The segment won an Emmy Award.[45][67] Albright’s “non-denial” was taken by sanctions opponents as confirmation of a high number of sanctions related casualties.[57][63](Wikipedia)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=omnskeu-puE

    Did such blood curdling admission aired on a widely attended transmission as CBS' 60 Minutes move the American public opinion of an inch? Did it prevent American public from endorsing "twice" such genocidal war criminals as Clinton, Bush and Obama? Did it prevent 30 years of killing of and misery for millions of human beings, most of them children, women and innocent civilians?

    The answer is that the public is guilty as much as the rulers. Wasn't the German public guilty as much as Hitler for the unspeakable crimes committed by the caporal that they elected and supported in implementing the greatest carnage ever in human history? (Karl Jasper, La culpabilté allemand, Paris, Édition de Minuit, 1948 and Primo Levi, Le Naufrage et Les Rescapés. Quarante ans après Auschwitz. Paris, Gallimard 1989).
    Weren't the ancient Ahenians, widely considered as the most outstanding example of freedom and participatory politics, guilty for the genocide of the Melians? (Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War , book 5, chapters 84–116)

    On closer reading, Mario64, it appears you’ve not given much thought to the quotes in your cut-and-paste assemblage.

    Pilger seems like he would be a sound source, he’s published on Unz, after all, and he’s reliably lefty (I guess; I really have little clue what those terms mean anymore).
    But look at the content and context of the Pilger quote, and apply it to the actual film he’s discussing: I see a mismatch, perhaps the result of Hitler Derangement Syndrome,© or ascribable to the fact that Pilger is British and inclined to defend the Muthah country, right or wrong.

    IMDb — not exactly a skinhead operation — said this in a synopsis of the 13 segments of “Triumph of the Will”

    “Hitler gives a speech closing the proceedings. This speech, just like all the others documented, have no programs or explanations but are designed to
    create enthusiasm for a new Germany,
    united,
    that can do extraordinary things,
    that can solve problems and
    build for a better future,
    where the ordinary worker is treated with dignity, and
    all are motivated by patriotic love for the German nation. ”

    To be sure, elsewhere on IMDb “Triumph” is described as “sinister” and “chilling;” “propaganda . . .demonstrating “how the Nazi state drew in the masses through propaganda and also how Adolf Hitler had a unique and terrifying ability to entice crowds to his beliefs by the very power of his words.”

    All of this, these contrapuntal viewpoints, are described by Riefenstahl as emerging from an effort that was NOT dictated by Hitler (contrary to the claims of those who credited Hitler’s rhetoric), but were imbibed as a result of “the submissive void of the German public.”

    In other words, the German people in Nuremberg in 1934 took themselves to their homes at day’s end, sang patriotic songs; rose at dawn to quiet streets; attended apparently non-violent rallies in newly-built, very large stadiums; raised young men who camped in tents and went about their work with smiling faces; mothers gave flowers to Hitler as their held their children — all spontaneous emanations of the “submissive void of the German people.”

    Where there had been rampant prostitution, poverty and mob violence during the Weimar years, now, according to Riefenstahl in 1934, there arose from the “submissive void of the German people” orderliness, hopefulness, community cohesion, industriousness and a sense of gratitude.

    Sinister indeed.

    In contrast, as Dr. Michael Jones has detailed in numerous speeches and writing, there exists a “revolutionary spirit” that uses sexual degradation to undermine the moral character of a people, with the goal of more easily exercising control and dominance over that people.
    In this system it must be observed that the compromising force comes from without rather than from within the “submissive void” of the target people.
    Once compromised in this way, the intrusive, demoralizing force imposes its agenda, which usually includes seduction of the populace to consumerism and attendant capitalist (usurious) borrowing to pay for previously unneeded “wants.” In “Capturing the German Eye,” Cora Sol Goldstein describes just such a “democracy-enforcing” regimen, which Goldstein concedes was carried out through “brutal and undemocratic means.”

    No such program is apparent in Riefenstahl’s “Triumph.”

    The debauching program described by Jones occasionally is enforced with violent means. Just such a program — termed by its managers “psychological warfare” — was carried out against the German people for three- to five years after Germany surrendered. During that period, Allied forces maintained a “monopoly on violence;” — Germans lived under constant existential threat.
    In contrast to the scenarios in “Triumph,” German people were deprived of the most basic shelter, and permitted amounts of food insufficient to sustain even an inactive adult. To make up the deficit, women, men and children once again were forced to prostitute themselves. Thus, under control of US forces, the German people found themselves back in the same degraded state as they had successfully dug themselves out of under National Socialism.

    In short, it appears the “submissive void” of the German people had a lot more going for it; and was far more peaceful, civilized and productive, than the violently enforced imposition of “democracy, capitalism, and consumerism” that first, used sexual demoralization to ‘soften up’ a people, the better to carry out “the secret of all domination: to make the dominated participate to their own domination.”

    Finally, which scenario — the one that Riefenstahl describes in “Triumph of the Will” or the one theorized by Michael Jones and applied as described by Cora Sol Goldstein, more closely fits the situation of American people relative to Madeleine Albright’s answer to Leslie Stahl.

    Specifically,

    Did such blood curdling admission aired on a widely attended transmission as CBS’ 60 Minutes move the American public opinion of an inch? Did it prevent American public from endorsing “twice” such genocidal war criminals as Clinton, Bush and Obama? Did it prevent 30 years of killing of and misery for millions of human beings, most of them children, women and innocent civilians?

    The answer is that the public is guilty as much as the rulers.

    Incomprehensibly, you leap from that question to a condemnation of the German people.

    I say incomprehensibly because, as the world knows, German leaders and the German people have been punished and punished and punished again, many times for crimes they did not commit but were convicted of ex post facto charges, in kangaroo courts, after being tortured, based on falsified evidence; while no American or Allied or “Coalition of the Willing” leader or foot soldier has been called to account, either for crimes committed flagrantly and deliberately against the German people in WWII, nor in the events Madeleine Albright claims she was “tricked” into admitting.

    I submit that the fraudulent holocaust narrative has provided a smoke screen behind which the US — and Jews, and Anglos — hide, to evade accountability for their egregious crimes against humanity. And it is precisely the seeming impunity those groups enjoy as a result of enforcing — under threat of criminal prosecution — that outrageously false narrative that empowers them to commit more and more of the same heinous crimes against humanity.

    For that reason, I submit that it is essential to deconstruct the holocaust narrative; bring to justice Americans, Anglos and Jews who have committed these crimes; require that they make reparations and repent of their evil deeds.

    There is no other way.

    The German people have paid their debt and far in excess. They deserve — they demand — return to their rightful place as a model among the nations.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    John Pilger is Australian (although when he was born that was practically the same thing as being British).
    , @Mario64
    Your point is partisan, mine isn't.

    ... After the Holocaust, many observers and scholars wondered if there was something distinctive about German identity that made Germans more prone to obedient behavior than individuals from other cultures. Stanley Milgram, a professor at Yale University, decided to find out by recruiting college students to take part in what he called “a study of the effects of punishment on learning.” Working with pairs, Milgram designated one volunteer as “teacher” and the other as “learner.” As the “teacher” watched, the “learner” was strapped into a chair with an electrode attached to each wrist. The “learner” was then told to memorize word pairs for a test and warned that wrong answers would result in electric shocks. The “learner” was, in fact, a [acting] member of Milgram’s team. The real focus of the experiment was the “teacher.” Each was taken to a separate room and seated before a “shock generator” with switches ranging from 15 volts labeled “slight shock” to 450 volts labeled “danger—severe shock.” Each “teacher” was told to administer a “shock” for each wrong answer. The shock was to increase by 15 volts every time the “learner” responded incorrectly. The volunteer received a practice shock before the test began to get an idea of the pain involved. In Milgram’s words, “The point of the experiment is to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measurable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim. At what point will the subject refuse to obey the experimenter?”

    Milgram’s hypothesis was that Germans would be more obedient than United States subjects and that most volunteers would refuse to give electric shocks of more than 150 volts. A group of psychologists and psychiatrists predicted that less than one-tenth of 1% of the volunteers would administer all 450 volts
    [supposedly lethal]. To everyone’s amazement, 65% gave the full 450 volts! Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist at Stanford University, made the following comments about Milgram’s study:

    "The question to ask of Milgram’s research is not why the majority of normal, average subjects behave in evil (felonious) ways, but what did the disobeying minority do after they refused to continue to shock the poor soul, who was so obviously in pain? Did they intervene, go to his aid, did they denounce the researcher, protest to higher authorities, etc.? No, even their disobedience was within the framework of “acceptability,” they stayed in their seats, “in their assigned place,” politely, psychologically demurred, and they waited to be dismissed by the authority."

    ...... an experiment conducted by Ron Jones, a history teacher in California in the 1960s, whose findings also reveal how obedience is a dominant facet of human behavior. While teaching a unit on Nazi Germany, he asked his students to obey specific commands about how to sit, answer questions, and salute him. Jones was shocked to find that nearly all of his students willingly, and even enthusiastically, obeyed his every command. Within several days, Jones orchestrated a series of rules for “Third Wave” members to follow, including reporting infractions of classmates who were not obeying these commands. Again, an overwhelming majority of students followed Jones’s plans, even threatening to beat up the minority of students who were skeptical of the Third Wave. Worried parents of these students called Jones to find out what was happening in school. “I was hoping he would come in with a tremendous amount of rage,” say Jones, referring to his conversation with a concerned father. Instead of being angry, the parent accepted Jones’s explanation.

    At this point, Jones was looking for an excuse to stop the Third Wave, such as intervention on the part of parents or school administrators. But, this was not to be. After about a week, when Jones recognized that the experiment had gotten out of control, he knew he had to take steps to end it.
    At an assembly, he told his students, “There is no Third Wave movement. . . . You and I are no better or worse than the citizens of the Third Reich. We would have worked in the defense plants. We will watch our neighbors be taken away, and do nothing,” Jones declared, referring to the three skeptics who had been exiled to the library for the crime of disbelief. “We’re just like those Germans.

    https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/decision-making-times-injustice/obedience#endnote7
  132. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @HdC
    http://www.counter-currents.com/2016/03/hitler-vs-the-untermenschen-myth-reality/

    Read it and weep. HdC

    And we should believe this source why?

    Read More
    • Replies: @SolontoCroesus
    You are not engaging in serious discussion, Anon.

    Did you read the material? Why not assess it on its merits, or do you need someone to spoon feed material to you, pre-chewed like a robin feeding its chicks?


    It is challenging reading, not run of the mill History Channel propaganda; the analysis is above the quality of CODOH, equal to IHR information in its objectivity and rationality. That's a rare find.

    It was very critical, even condemnatory of Hitler, but -- and this is unique -- in an analytic and objective way rather than the usual "Hitler was evil" and "Hitler hated Joos." It was refreshing to read something that actually discussed What Hitler said and Did; its logic, merits and demerits; as against what is commonly and propagandistically said about Hitler.

    Thanks HdC
    , @NoseytheDuke
    I read it. There are specific references to speeches, documents and writings with dates etc. Refute it by all means but you don't get to discount it simply by renouncing it. Sorry about that.
  133. Cyrano says:
    @AP

    By what stretch of the imagination was the Maidan coup a revolution?
     
    Let's stick to the original question about whether or not the revolution was a coup or a popular revolt. So:

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    You get points for a more clever attempt at diversion than annamaria's. But it is still an attempt to avoid the question.


    How does replacement of one corrupt government with another by violent means qualify as a “Revolution"
     
    Definition of revolution

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/revolution

    "A forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system"

    I don't see corruption as a qualifier there.

    A government of largely ethnic Russian oligarchs based in Donbas, seeking in the end to integrate Ukraine with Russia, was overthrown and replaced by a new one composed more of ethnic Ukrainians with a power base elsewhere in the country, seeking to integrate Ukraine with the West. The old ruling parties were banned (the Party of Regions was renamed and still survives, but the Communists are still gone), different ones are in power.

    If you think nothing substantial changed, then why do the pro-Russians complain about it?

    But again, the issue is - was this a foreign coup (as you claim) or a popular native revolt. If a foreign coup simply because the West took a side and helped, well:

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    Or how about this: was the removal from power of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein a:
    1. Revolution
    2. A coup
    3. A naked aggression

    ( I saw on TV the Americans were wearing uniforms, so I guess it’s not a naked foreign aggression)

    In order to qualify as a revolution, violent overthrow of government is not enough. REVOLUTION implies changes for the better. To revolutionize something – to bring new and improved version of something. And it has to be indigenous.

    It seems that imagination is not one of your strongest suits – is it now? If a revolution doesn’t bring progress – than it’s a regression. If it’s neither progress nor regression – then I guess it’s nothing. Which is what Ukraine got. Nothing.

    In my book even the American “revolution” doesn’t really qualify as a revolution. Why? Well in 1776 America was part of the British Empire, a piece of that country. A change of government for the better did occur, but only on part of its territory. In other words the king was still there after the “revolution” ended. The monarchy survived the revolution. It was merely a war of independence from colonial rule. That’s about it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Or how about this: was the removal from power of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein a:
    1. Revolution
    2. A coup
    3. A naked aggression
     
    Gaddafi was removed because the Western military bombed his country in support of rebels.

    Saddam was removed because nearly 200,000 Coalition troops invaded the country.

    You are comparing Yanukovich fleeing Ukraine to either of these situations?

    In order to qualify as a revolution, violent overthrow of government is not enough. REVOLUTION implies changes for the better.
     
    That's not what the dictionary says. And the most famous Revolutions, in Russia and France, did not make things better.

    And it has to be indigenous.
     
    Sure. Tell me how many Western troops brought to power the new Ukrainian government. How many of the 100,000s of people in the streets were non-indigenous? Which if the new rulers were non-indigenous?

    You know where the Maidan Revolution was most popular in Ukraine? In the central and western parts. The ethnic "heartland" of the native Ukrainians.

    You know who was non-indigenous? Yanukovich, the president, born in the eastern fringe of Ukraine, to two migrants neither of whom were Ukrainians. The overthrown PM, Azarov, a Russian migrant who arrived in Ukraine in the 1980s whe he was in his 30s. The overthrown defense minister, another Russian who came to Ukraine as an adult.

    Did the West provide money (I hope you won't apply the silly figure of $5 billion) and diplomatic cover and support? Sure. Can you think of overthrows when someone didn't do so? The French did much more for the Americans than the West did for the Ukrainians. Germany sent Lenin by train to cause problems for its Russian rival. Neither of these were foreign coups. Nor was what occurred in Ukraine.

    If a revolution doesn’t bring progress – than it’s a regression. If it’s neither progress nor regression – then I guess it’s nothing. Which is what Ukraine got. Nothing.

     

    Ukrainians overthrew their government because they didn't want the president to consolidate his rule and become a despot, they didn't want Ukraine to get locked out of Europe and locked in with Russia, and they wanted to stop the corruption that was getting worse. Two of the three things were accomplished. There is no widespread regret in Ukraine that Yanukovich was overthrown. People are disappointed in Poroshenko but this just means they want pro-Western leaders other than him. It might be "nothing" for you that Ukraine didn't turn into another Uzbekistan or Belarus, but Ukraine's people disagree.
  134. @Anon
    And we should believe this source why?

    You are not engaging in serious discussion, Anon.

    Did you read the material? Why not assess it on its merits, or do you need someone to spoon feed material to you, pre-chewed like a robin feeding its chicks?

    It is challenging reading, not run of the mill History Channel propaganda; the analysis is above the quality of CODOH, equal to IHR information in its objectivity and rationality. That’s a rare find.

    It was very critical, even condemnatory of Hitler, but — and this is unique — in an analytic and objective way rather than the usual “Hitler was evil” and “Hitler hated Joos.” It was refreshing to read something that actually discussed What Hitler said and Did; its logic, merits and demerits; as against what is commonly and propagandistically said about Hitler.

    Thanks HdC

    Read More
  135. @AP

    If the popular moment was as strong as you describe, then why the martyrs of the “heavenly hundred” and the civil war just two months before the legitimate election
     
    1. Yanukovich moved up the election as a desperate reaction to the protests. They had been scheduled for a year later.

    2. Nobody believed the election would have been legitimate. General consensus was that the two months would be a window in which to beef up security apparatus/purge those whose loyalty had wavered (so that the election could later be cancelled, or faked and resistance crushed), and/or steal as much as possible in case of an escape.

    It seems that you are unaware of Brennan’s visit to Kiev on the eve of the civili war. In case you do not know, Mr. Brennan is a former Director of CIA
     
    And a French general and thousands of French troops were on US soil during the American Revolution. The American Revolution was ended by the Treaty of Paris.

    It must have been a French coup against the British, not a popular uprising, right?

    Hmm, remind us how many US troops participated in the Ukrainian Revolution?

    There were a lot of courageous and principled protesters in Kiev in 2014, but their movement was co-opted and corrupted
     
    Idealists were indeed replaced by more clever and more ruthless types, who have stifled the progress that had originally been made. This has nothing to do with whether or not what happened in 2013-2014 was a "coup" or a popular uprising.

    As for the morale… “Poroshenko’s public approval rating, after winning the presidency with 55% of the vote in 2014, is now 6.4% according to pollsters at Rating
     
    Yes, other pro-Revolution parties are more popular instead. Poroshenko has disappointed, but if people had regretted the popular revolution then the Opposition Bloc (the political heir of the deposed Party of Regions of Yanukovich ) would have seen a surge in popularity. Hasn't happened.

    In 2013-2014 the western and central parts of Ukraine (half the country) engaged in a popular revolt and overthrew the government, whose support was less enthusiastic and whose supporters were outnumbered and largely limited to the country's southern and eastern fringe, far from the capital. To characterize this as a Western "coup", simply because the West provided support and encouragement, is to demonstrate the lack of credibility of the person describing it as a coup.

    Nice use of the word “fringe” to influence our emotions.

    Who are you to decide which parts of another country are “fringe”?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Nice use of the word “fringe” to influence our emotions.

    Who are you to decide which parts of another country are “fringe”?
     
    The ones on the extreme ends of the country, where the Communists are still popular, and where the titular nationality is a minority. The American analogue would be CA and southern FL. That is not fringe, according to you?
  136. @Wally
    Indeed, the 'women's march' was nothing more than Rebels Without a Clue.

    53% of all white women voted for Trump.

    62% of non-college degree white women voted for Trump.

    And who did we see at this childish event? The white women who lost, that's who. So where was their mandated 'diversity'?

    Yet there was no real issues. Rove vs. Wade is all about taxpayer funding of abortions, not whether women can or cannot get abortions. Their arguments are pure strawman, false.

    Why should US taxpayers be forced to pay for other people's abortions when those people made their own choice to have sex?

    Of course they won't discuss the fact that women are legally stoned in Muslim countries, or that women can't even drive cars in Muslim countries, and the fact that gays are legally executed for being gay in Muslim countries.
    And that Hillary took millions in 'donations' from those very countries.

    For sure though, wearing pink 'PUSSY' hats really helps advance 'women's dignity'

    'feminist' Miley Cyrus certainly knows how to advance 'women's dignity':
    http://images.intouchweekly.com/uploads/posts/image/69834/miley-cyrus.jpg

    And guess what. When they got home afterwards Trump was still President of the US.

    Wally, your abortion comments are not accurate. It’s ROE v. Wade, not ROVE. More important, neither Roe nor PPFA v. Casey issued any holding about the “right” to force taxpayers to pay for one’s abortion.

    Having said that, I’d like to see the Supreme Court, with a couple new Trump nominees, overrule Roe and Casey and return the whole abortion issue to the States per the Tenth Amendment.

    Read More
  137. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @SolontoCroesus
    You are not engaging in serious discussion, Anon.

    Did you read the material? Why not assess it on its merits, or do you need someone to spoon feed material to you, pre-chewed like a robin feeding its chicks?


    It is challenging reading, not run of the mill History Channel propaganda; the analysis is above the quality of CODOH, equal to IHR information in its objectivity and rationality. That's a rare find.

    It was very critical, even condemnatory of Hitler, but -- and this is unique -- in an analytic and objective way rather than the usual "Hitler was evil" and "Hitler hated Joos." It was refreshing to read something that actually discussed What Hitler said and Did; its logic, merits and demerits; as against what is commonly and propagandistically said about Hitler.

    Thanks HdC

    So are you HdC or Solonto?

    Read More
  138. @Anonymous

    Every time people are made to take off their belts and shoes – to stick only to the least inane instances – they are reminded: yes, we can do this to you! Half of Boston or all of France can be placed under undeclared martial law to tell people: yes, we have you under full control!
     
    The Womens (so-called) Protest raised "Yes, we can do this to you . . . Yes, we have you under full control" to another level: masses of women made and wore pink horns, voluntarily signifying that they had approved of the desecrating activities of a profane group of Russian vandals.

    And that they endorse cuckolding their fathers, husbands, brothers.

    Those hats are horns, the horns of a cuckold.

    Those women willingly and gleefully self-controlled to cuckold the male of the species.

    The women's protest rally was an international celebration of emasculation.

    What did those women gleefully do? I’m profoundly uninterested in them but I suggest that, in trying to give meaning to what they were wearing/displaying you should first put team spirit/colours and next a desire to be a bit shocking.

    Consider how the malevolent critic would interpret a lot of southerners turning up in T shirts with Confederate flags.

    Read More
  139. AP says:
    @alexander
    Hi AP,

    I do believe that Yanukovytch proved to be a very corrupt leader, I think this is quite true, but he was elected democratically, at least this is my understanding.

    I think there was pressure put on him to step down before his term was up,which he agreed to do, and there was also an offer made to launch new elections, on a much earlier cycle.

    Those election could (and would) have been certified by an independent third party.

    It was at this time that vested interests "outside" the Ukraine (namely Victoria Nuland, Mr. Kagan and a whole coterie of "regime change" Neocons) saw this as a perfect opportunity to swoop in and take Kiev.

    So they did.

    The result was the violent "Maidan coup" where we installed "our man " Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister.

    Who was placed in power by our Neocons ....not elected.

    I think this is ,more or less, what happened. No ?

    First – sorry for the snappy tone.

    I do believe that Yanukovytch proved to be a very corrupt leader, I think this is quite true, but he was elected democratically, at least this is my understanding.

    Correct. He was indeed elected democratically. He won a narrow election (49% to 45.5% in a two-person race, after the runoff). This is the part that those who oppose Maidan always mention. They ignore the rest, however:

    - Yanukovich won with limited powers. He was facing an elected, Opposition-led parliament.

    - After winning, through a combination of bribes and threats he “flipped” the parliament, making it a Yanukovich-controlled one. This changeover wasn’t done through new elections. So he essentially annulled the previous election results.

    - Through bribes and threats he got inconvenient Constitutional Court members to resign and replaced them with loyalists from his home town (like the judge who vacated his assault conviction)

    - The new parliament and new court then expanded the Presidential powers, delayed the parliamentary election by a year, and changed the election rules specifically in order to make it harder for the Opposition to win new elections. It made as its prime minister a Russian who moved from Russia to Ukraine in the 1980s when he was already in his mid-thirties.

    So, the people elected a president who was supposed to have limited powers and to have been constrained by an Opposition parliament. But, without any new elections or referendums, they ended up with a guy in total control of all branches of government.

    He then pursued his agenda, dividing the country’s economy amongst his cronies, while throwing bones to his constituents who were largely non-Ukrainians (Russian as official second language in certain states).

    In the 2012 elections, the Opposition scored a decisive popular vote victory. If the rules had been like they had been in 2010, they would have controlled the parliament. But thanks to the elections changes, they were shut out of power despite winning the vote. These are the parties who took over the country after the Maidan revolution.

    The presidential election was about a year away. Two opposition candidates were leading him by double-digits in the polls. Yanukovich passed a law that made one candidate ineligible for running (it was a new residency law banning people who had lived abroad too long from becoming president – this candidate, the boxer Klitschko, had lived and trained in Germany). The other had his offices raided by the police. Both of these candidates were active on the side of the Maidan revolution.

    An analogy to the USA – this would be like Obama barely winning an election and being faced with an elected Republican congress. He would the get the Supreme Court’s conservatives to resign and replacing them with some corrupt local Chicago judges, without new election force the congress to flip Democratic and make a Mexican immigrant the new speaker of the House/Senate Majority leader (Ukraine’s legislature is unicameral). With all three branches of government fully under his control, he would then pursue a divisive agenda as his popularity diminishes. Election rules would be fixed to make it impossible for the other side to win elections.

    America’s system is designed to prevent something like this from happening. Ukraine’s didn’t do so.

    I think there was pressure put on him to step down before his term was up,which he agreed to do, and there was also an offer made to launch new elections, on a much earlier cycle

    After he lost control of the country through mass unrest he agreed to move up presidential elections in order to placate the protests. This was widely and credibly viewed in Ukraine as an attempt to either wait out the protests while shoring up and beefing up security (replacing police and military who had wavered in their loyalty, bringing more Russians from Crimea into Kiev, etc.) to be better prepared for a violent “rematch”, and an opportunity to steal as much as possible/destroy incriminating evidence for the flight to Russia if need be. Given his established record of behavior, it was taken for granted that Yanukovich wasn’t acting in good faith.

    The result was the violent “Maidan coup” where we installed “our man ” Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister…Who was placed in power by our Neocons ….not elected.

    Yatseniuk was the guy in charge of the largest Opposition Party. He would have been PM had the 2012 election been fair (remember, the Opposition had won the popular vote in that election but the new rules kept them out of power). That might be why Nuland was pushing for him to become PM in the tape.

    So he was “elected” in 2012. After the revolution another election was run and he continued to be PM based on the results of that election (his party came in a close 2nd place but was in coalition with the winning party). Pro-Russians will say that the new election wasn’t fair because the Communists were banned. Well, if you look at the electoral map you’ll see that without Crimea and Donbas the pro-Russian side had zero chance of winning anyways.

    As for installed – sorry, we did not send troops there. Maybe the French installed Washington? They actually did send troops.

    Read More
    • Replies: @NoseytheDuke
    Thank you. It is such a relief to learn that Victoria Nuland is actually committed to democracy via free and fair elections. I shall henceforth refer to her in reverential terms. What a loss for the US should her talents be neglected by Trump.
  140. AP says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Nice use of the word "fringe" to influence our emotions.

    Who are you to decide which parts of another country are "fringe"?

    Nice use of the word “fringe” to influence our emotions.

    Who are you to decide which parts of another country are “fringe”?

    The ones on the extreme ends of the country, where the Communists are still popular, and where the titular nationality is a minority. The American analogue would be CA and southern FL. That is not fringe, according to you?

    Read More
  141. AP says:
    @Cyrano
    Or how about this: was the removal from power of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein a:
    1. Revolution
    2. A coup
    3. A naked aggression

    ( I saw on TV the Americans were wearing uniforms, so I guess it’s not a naked foreign aggression)

    In order to qualify as a revolution, violent overthrow of government is not enough. REVOLUTION implies changes for the better. To revolutionize something – to bring new and improved version of something. And it has to be indigenous.

    It seems that imagination is not one of your strongest suits – is it now? If a revolution doesn’t bring progress – than it’s a regression. If it’s neither progress nor regression – then I guess it’s nothing. Which is what Ukraine got. Nothing.

    In my book even the American “revolution” doesn’t really qualify as a revolution. Why? Well in 1776 America was part of the British Empire, a piece of that country. A change of government for the better did occur, but only on part of its territory. In other words the king was still there after the “revolution” ended. The monarchy survived the revolution. It was merely a war of independence from colonial rule. That’s about it.

    Or how about this: was the removal from power of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein a:
    1. Revolution
    2. A coup
    3. A naked aggression

    Gaddafi was removed because the Western military bombed his country in support of rebels.

    Saddam was removed because nearly 200,000 Coalition troops invaded the country.

    You are comparing Yanukovich fleeing Ukraine to either of these situations?

    In order to qualify as a revolution, violent overthrow of government is not enough. REVOLUTION implies changes for the better.

    That’s not what the dictionary says. And the most famous Revolutions, in Russia and France, did not make things better.

    And it has to be indigenous.

    Sure. Tell me how many Western troops brought to power the new Ukrainian government. How many of the 100,000s of people in the streets were non-indigenous? Which if the new rulers were non-indigenous?

    You know where the Maidan Revolution was most popular in Ukraine? In the central and western parts. The ethnic “heartland” of the native Ukrainians.

    You know who was non-indigenous? Yanukovich, the president, born in the eastern fringe of Ukraine, to two migrants neither of whom were Ukrainians. The overthrown PM, Azarov, a Russian migrant who arrived in Ukraine in the 1980s whe he was in his 30s. The overthrown defense minister, another Russian who came to Ukraine as an adult.

    Did the West provide money (I hope you won’t apply the silly figure of $5 billion) and diplomatic cover and support? Sure. Can you think of overthrows when someone didn’t do so? The French did much more for the Americans than the West did for the Ukrainians. Germany sent Lenin by train to cause problems for its Russian rival. Neither of these were foreign coups. Nor was what occurred in Ukraine.

    If a revolution doesn’t bring progress – than it’s a regression. If it’s neither progress nor regression – then I guess it’s nothing. Which is what Ukraine got. Nothing.

    Ukrainians overthrew their government because they didn’t want the president to consolidate his rule and become a despot, they didn’t want Ukraine to get locked out of Europe and locked in with Russia, and they wanted to stop the corruption that was getting worse. Two of the three things were accomplished. There is no widespread regret in Ukraine that Yanukovich was overthrown. People are disappointed in Poroshenko but this just means they want pro-Western leaders other than him. It might be “nothing” for you that Ukraine didn’t turn into another Uzbekistan or Belarus, but Ukraine’s people disagree.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    "You know who was non-indigenous? Yanukovich, the president, born in the eastern fringe of Ukraine, to two migrants neither of whom were Ukrainians."
    Now you have Groysman. Congratulations. And Kolomojsky is, of course, another famous fighter for Ukrainian Independence (never mind his three citizenship). And please tell us about corruption in Ukraine getting... "better?"
    http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/2016-07-08_ukraine_poll_shows_skepticism_glimmer_of_hope.pdf
    , @Cyrano
    Of course French and October revolutions were failures. Any revolution that’s not authorized by US is doomed to failure. Which is why the Ukrainian" revolution" was on track to become a raging success until the Russians intervened. Check in your dictionary again whether a revolution is supposed to bring progress or regress, because if it doesn’t say it there, then it’s it isn’t so. Then after you are done with that, go back to watch CNN – the ministry of truth, because this is too complex for you and it’s not covered in the dictionary.
  142. mcohen. says:

    Evidently Ukrainian hackers were responsible for the Clinton email leaks.if this is true and trump was elected with there help then the regime change took place in America given that Clinton was supposed to be Unstoppables in her Undeplorables
    The fact is that huma and co. Overshot there shat
    Evidently they are dusting off the B 52,s,…..I do believe the west has had enough

    Read More
  143. @Anon
    And we should believe this source why?

    I read it. There are specific references to speeches, documents and writings with dates etc. Refute it by all means but you don’t get to discount it simply by renouncing it. Sorry about that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You're missing the point. HdC/Solonto imposes his own standard of evidence on others; I'm just doing the same.
  144. @SolontoCroesus
    On closer reading, Mario64, it appears you've not given much thought to the quotes in your cut-and-paste assemblage.

    Pilger seems like he would be a sound source, he's published on Unz, after all, and he's reliably lefty (I guess; I really have little clue what those terms mean anymore).
    But look at the content and context of the Pilger quote, and apply it to the actual film he's discussing: I see a mismatch, perhaps the result of Hitler Derangement Syndrome,© or ascribable to the fact that Pilger is British and inclined to defend the Muthah country, right or wrong.

    IMDb -- not exactly a skinhead operation -- said this in a synopsis of the 13 segments of "Triumph of the Will"


    "Hitler gives a speech closing the proceedings. This speech, just like all the others documented, have no programs or explanations but are designed to
    create enthusiasm for a new Germany,
    united,
    that can do extraordinary things,
    that can solve problems and
    build for a better future,
    where the ordinary worker is treated with dignity, and
    all are motivated by patriotic love for the German nation. "
     
    To be sure, elsewhere on IMDb "Triumph" is described as "sinister" and "chilling;" "propaganda . . .demonstrating "how the Nazi state drew in the masses through propaganda and also how Adolf Hitler had a unique and terrifying ability to entice crowds to his beliefs by the very power of his words."

    All of this, these contrapuntal viewpoints, are described by Riefenstahl as emerging from an effort that was NOT dictated by Hitler (contrary to the claims of those who credited Hitler's rhetoric), but were imbibed as a result of "the submissive void of the German public."

    In other words, the German people in Nuremberg in 1934 took themselves to their homes at day's end, sang patriotic songs; rose at dawn to quiet streets; attended apparently non-violent rallies in newly-built, very large stadiums; raised young men who camped in tents and went about their work with smiling faces; mothers gave flowers to Hitler as their held their children -- all spontaneous emanations of the "submissive void of the German people."

    Where there had been rampant prostitution, poverty and mob violence during the Weimar years, now, according to Riefenstahl in 1934, there arose from the "submissive void of the German people" orderliness, hopefulness, community cohesion, industriousness and a sense of gratitude.

    Sinister indeed.

    In contrast, as Dr. Michael Jones has detailed in numerous speeches and writing, there exists a "revolutionary spirit" that uses sexual degradation to undermine the moral character of a people, with the goal of more easily exercising control and dominance over that people.
    In this system it must be observed that the compromising force comes from without rather than from within the "submissive void" of the target people.
    Once compromised in this way, the intrusive, demoralizing force imposes its agenda, which usually includes seduction of the populace to consumerism and attendant capitalist (usurious) borrowing to pay for previously unneeded "wants." In "Capturing the German Eye," Cora Sol Goldstein describes just such a "democracy-enforcing" regimen, which Goldstein concedes was carried out through "brutal and undemocratic means."

    No such program is apparent in Riefenstahl's "Triumph."

    The debauching program described by Jones occasionally is enforced with violent means. Just such a program -- termed by its managers "psychological warfare" -- was carried out against the German people for three- to five years after Germany surrendered. During that period, Allied forces maintained a "monopoly on violence;" -- Germans lived under constant existential threat.
    In contrast to the scenarios in "Triumph," German people were deprived of the most basic shelter, and permitted amounts of food insufficient to sustain even an inactive adult. To make up the deficit, women, men and children once again were forced to prostitute themselves. Thus, under control of US forces, the German people found themselves back in the same degraded state as they had successfully dug themselves out of under National Socialism.

    In short, it appears the "submissive void" of the German people had a lot more going for it; and was far more peaceful, civilized and productive, than the violently enforced imposition of "democracy, capitalism, and consumerism" that first, used sexual demoralization to 'soften up' a people, the better to carry out "the secret of all domination: to make the dominated participate to their own domination."

    Finally, which scenario -- the one that Riefenstahl describes in "Triumph of the Will" or the one theorized by Michael Jones and applied as described by Cora Sol Goldstein, more closely fits the situation of American people relative to Madeleine Albright's answer to Leslie Stahl.

    Specifically,


    Did such blood curdling admission aired on a widely attended transmission as CBS’ 60 Minutes move the American public opinion of an inch? Did it prevent American public from endorsing “twice” such genocidal war criminals as Clinton, Bush and Obama? Did it prevent 30 years of killing of and misery for millions of human beings, most of them children, women and innocent civilians?

    The answer is that the public is guilty as much as the rulers.
     

    Incomprehensibly, you leap from that question to a condemnation of the German people.

    I say incomprehensibly because, as the world knows, German leaders and the German people have been punished and punished and punished again, many times for crimes they did not commit but were convicted of ex post facto charges, in kangaroo courts, after being tortured, based on falsified evidence; while no American or Allied or "Coalition of the Willing" leader or foot soldier has been called to account, either for crimes committed flagrantly and deliberately against the German people in WWII, nor in the events Madeleine Albright claims she was "tricked" into admitting.

    I submit that the fraudulent holocaust narrative has provided a smoke screen behind which the US -- and Jews, and Anglos -- hide, to evade accountability for their egregious crimes against humanity. And it is precisely the seeming impunity those groups enjoy as a result of enforcing -- under threat of criminal prosecution -- that outrageously false narrative that empowers them to commit more and more of the same heinous crimes against humanity.

    For that reason, I submit that it is essential to deconstruct the holocaust narrative; bring to justice Americans, Anglos and Jews who have committed these crimes; require that they make reparations and repent of their evil deeds.

    There is no other way.

    The German people have paid their debt and far in excess. They deserve -- they demand -- return to their rightful place as a model among the nations.

    John Pilger is Australian (although when he was born that was practically the same thing as being British).

    Read More
  145. @alexander
    Hi AP,

    I do believe that Yanukovytch proved to be a very corrupt leader, I think this is quite true, but he was elected democratically, at least this is my understanding.

    I think there was pressure put on him to step down before his term was up,which he agreed to do, and there was also an offer made to launch new elections, on a much earlier cycle.

    Those election could (and would) have been certified by an independent third party.

    It was at this time that vested interests "outside" the Ukraine (namely Victoria Nuland, Mr. Kagan and a whole coterie of "regime change" Neocons) saw this as a perfect opportunity to swoop in and take Kiev.

    So they did.

    The result was the violent "Maidan coup" where we installed "our man " Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister.

    Who was placed in power by our Neocons ....not elected.

    I think this is ,more or less, what happened. No ?

    I think there was pressure put on him to step down before his term was up,which he agreed to do, and there was also an offer made to launch new elections, on a much earlier cycle … Those election could (and would) have been certified by an independent third party.

    This is one of several weaknesses in AP’s argument that Yanukovich ‘would never have relinquished power voluntarily’. In fact, it poses him with a fatal dilemma:

    A.) Either Yanukovich did indeed step down voluntarily in February 2014, three months before the election he had scheduled for May 2014, and full year and three months before Ukraine’s regularly scheduled presidential elections were to have occurred. So if Yanukovich’s departure ahead of schedule was voluntary, then AP’s assertion that he would never have departed voluntarily has been proven false. Or …

    B.) Yanukovich’s ahead-of-schedule departure was not voluntary at all. And since there was no impeachment proceeding–the only lawful way to remove a president in Ukraine–his ‘ouster’ fits the legal description of a coup d’état. And if he was forced out in 2014, the US/EU could have just as easily been forced him out in 2015, if it were determined that he had tampered with the elections.

    As it happens, B was the case. We know this because, a few days after he was forced out of Kiev, Yanukovich turned up in Kharkov (I think it was) and told a television audience that he had not resigned and was still president.

    But either way, AP is backed into a corner and his argument is demolished.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    AP has also pointed out to the "non-indigenousness" of Yanukovitch whose parent, allegedly, were not Ukrainian enough to make him Ukrainian (though the name Yanukovitch sounds quite Ukrainian). Well, "Volodymyr Borysovych Groysman has been the Prime Minister of Ukraine since 14 April 2016. Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family."
    At last, AP is happy with the indigenousness of Groysman.
    , @AP

    Yanukovich’s ahead-of-schedule departure was not voluntary at all. And since there was no impeachment proceeding–the only lawful way to remove a president in Ukraine–his ‘ouster’ fits the legal description of a coup d’état.
     
    A coup d'état; French: [ku deta]), sometimes translated as "blow of state" or "hit of state", but the literal translation is "stroke of the state" – as in the swiping or stroke of a sword; plural: coups d'état, (pronounced like the singular form), also known simply as a coup (/kuː/), putsch or an overthrow, is the illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus.

    Mass uprising involving 100,000s of people doesn't fit the definition. If you don't know what a coup is, look at what just happened in Turkey. Or what was attempted in the last months of the USSR.

    As for "unlawful" - I suppose it your world it was lawful for Yanukovich to usurp total power over the country but unlawful for him to be removed, when doing so wasn't in accordance with laws in an environment when he made the laws. How convenient.

    And if he was forced out in 2014, the US/EU could have just as easily been forced him out in 2015, if it were determined that he had tampered with the elections.
     
    He wasn't forced out by the US/EU (how many troops were involved again? How many bombers?) but by a mass uprising in the capital in the west and center (including the capital) combined with the disintegration of his security forces, which were apparently caught by surprise and unwilling/unable to crush the uprising. It was more like what happened in Eastern Europe when the communist regimes collapsed. Was that "unlawful" too?

    He might not have been as easily forced out by the people in 2015, if given a year to prepare/regroup. In such a case you wouldn't be complaining though.
  146. @godfree roberts
    "Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes."

    Really? Can you provide a quote and link to substantiate this claim?

    https://www.rt.com/usa/noam-chomsky-911-truthers-342/

    Noam shows what he is – a pompous, vainglorious apologist for the clerisy.

    Read More
  147. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @NoseytheDuke
    I read it. There are specific references to speeches, documents and writings with dates etc. Refute it by all means but you don't get to discount it simply by renouncing it. Sorry about that.

    You’re missing the point. HdC/Solonto imposes his own standard of evidence on others; I’m just doing the same.

    Read More
    • Replies: @HdC
    You are just waving your arms as you have not written one word about your standards of evidence.

    I supplied a well documented study to back up my beliefs, and you???

    Btw, I'm HdC but thank you for the compliment earlier. Solonto Croesus is much more knowledgeable and articulate than I. HdC
    , @NoseytheDuke
    No, the point was made that the source was not credible. I read the article and found it to be very detailed, in fact so detailed that it would be easily refuted if false. So far nobody here has done that.

    Big Media (NYT, WAPO, LAT etc, etc) is not credible given the ongoing parroting of 9/11 fiction, weapons of mass destruction, Putin's election meddling etc, etc. Anyone quoting from them, or indeed even supporting them financially by purchasing their offerings has outed themselves as a fool based on the fool-me-twice principle
  148. annamaria says:
    @AP

    Or how about this: was the removal from power of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein a:
    1. Revolution
    2. A coup
    3. A naked aggression
     
    Gaddafi was removed because the Western military bombed his country in support of rebels.

    Saddam was removed because nearly 200,000 Coalition troops invaded the country.

    You are comparing Yanukovich fleeing Ukraine to either of these situations?

    In order to qualify as a revolution, violent overthrow of government is not enough. REVOLUTION implies changes for the better.
     
    That's not what the dictionary says. And the most famous Revolutions, in Russia and France, did not make things better.

    And it has to be indigenous.
     
    Sure. Tell me how many Western troops brought to power the new Ukrainian government. How many of the 100,000s of people in the streets were non-indigenous? Which if the new rulers were non-indigenous?

    You know where the Maidan Revolution was most popular in Ukraine? In the central and western parts. The ethnic "heartland" of the native Ukrainians.

    You know who was non-indigenous? Yanukovich, the president, born in the eastern fringe of Ukraine, to two migrants neither of whom were Ukrainians. The overthrown PM, Azarov, a Russian migrant who arrived in Ukraine in the 1980s whe he was in his 30s. The overthrown defense minister, another Russian who came to Ukraine as an adult.

    Did the West provide money (I hope you won't apply the silly figure of $5 billion) and diplomatic cover and support? Sure. Can you think of overthrows when someone didn't do so? The French did much more for the Americans than the West did for the Ukrainians. Germany sent Lenin by train to cause problems for its Russian rival. Neither of these were foreign coups. Nor was what occurred in Ukraine.

    If a revolution doesn’t bring progress – than it’s a regression. If it’s neither progress nor regression – then I guess it’s nothing. Which is what Ukraine got. Nothing.

     

    Ukrainians overthrew their government because they didn't want the president to consolidate his rule and become a despot, they didn't want Ukraine to get locked out of Europe and locked in with Russia, and they wanted to stop the corruption that was getting worse. Two of the three things were accomplished. There is no widespread regret in Ukraine that Yanukovich was overthrown. People are disappointed in Poroshenko but this just means they want pro-Western leaders other than him. It might be "nothing" for you that Ukraine didn't turn into another Uzbekistan or Belarus, but Ukraine's people disagree.

    “You know who was non-indigenous? Yanukovich, the president, born in the eastern fringe of Ukraine, to two migrants neither of whom were Ukrainians.”
    Now you have Groysman. Congratulations. And Kolomojsky is, of course, another famous fighter for Ukrainian Independence (never mind his three citizenship). And please tell us about corruption in Ukraine getting… “better?”

    http://www.iri.org/sites/default/files/wysiwyg/2016-07-08_ukraine_poll_shows_skepticism_glimmer_of_hope.pdf

    Read More
  149. annamaria says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    I think there was pressure put on him to step down before his term was up,which he agreed to do, and there was also an offer made to launch new elections, on a much earlier cycle ... Those election could (and would) have been certified by an independent third party.
     
    This is one of several weaknesses in AP's argument that Yanukovich 'would never have relinquished power voluntarily'. In fact, it poses him with a fatal dilemma:

    A.) Either Yanukovich did indeed step down voluntarily in February 2014, three months before the election he had scheduled for May 2014, and full year and three months before Ukraine's regularly scheduled presidential elections were to have occurred. So if Yanukovich's departure ahead of schedule was voluntary, then AP's assertion that he would never have departed voluntarily has been proven false. Or ...

    B.) Yanukovich's ahead-of-schedule departure was not voluntary at all. And since there was no impeachment proceeding--the only lawful way to remove a president in Ukraine--his 'ouster' fits the legal description of a coup d'état. And if he was forced out in 2014, the US/EU could have just as easily been forced him out in 2015, if it were determined that he had tampered with the elections.

    As it happens, B was the case. We know this because, a few days after he was forced out of Kiev, Yanukovich turned up in Kharkov (I think it was) and told a television audience that he had not resigned and was still president.

    But either way, AP is backed into a corner and his argument is demolished.

    AP has also pointed out to the “non-indigenousness” of Yanukovitch whose parent, allegedly, were not Ukrainian enough to make him Ukrainian (though the name Yanukovitch sounds quite Ukrainian). Well, “Volodymyr Borysovych Groysman has been the Prime Minister of Ukraine since 14 April 2016. Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family.”
    At last, AP is happy with the indigenousness of Groysman.

    Read More
    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @AP

    Yanukovitch whose parent, allegedly, were not Ukrainian enough
     
    Yanukovch's father was Belarussian (half-Belarusian, half-Polish) and his mother was Russian.

    though the name Yanukovitch sounds quite Ukrainian
     
    Only to someone, like you, who is ignorant when it comes to Eastern Europe.

    Yanukovich is a Belarussian name. His Belarussian father was born in Belarus and moved to Ukraine. Yanukovich grew up in a part of Ukraine close to the Russian border where most of the people, like him, are not ethnic Ukrainians.

    So under the old regime Ukraine had a Russian-Belarussian President, child of migrants, and a Russian PM, who was himself a migrant, having moved to Ukraine from Russia when he was 34 years old.

    These non-Ukrainians were steering Ukraine into union with Russia when the native Ukrainians overthrew them. That really upsets you, doesn't it.


    Volodymyr Borysovych Groysman has been the Prime Minister of Ukraine since 14 April 2016. Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family.”
     
    Jews have been in Ukraine for over 1,000 years. I don't know how long Groysman's family was in Ukraine, but he was born and grew up right in the central part of the country, in a city that is 90% ethnic Ukrainian. Yanukovich's PM, in contrast, moved to Ukraine from Russia when he was 34 years old (I am repeating myself, to make sure that you understood).
  150. AP says:

    “You know who was non-indigenous? Yanukovich, the president, born in the eastern fringe of Ukraine, to two migrants neither of whom were Ukrainians.”
    Now you have Groysman. Congratulations.

    Groysman, the current PM, who is Jewish, was born and grew up in central Ukraine.

    Yeah, that’s really comparable to the overthrown PM Azarov, ethnic Russian, who moved to Ukraine from Russia when he was 34 years old.

    Kolomoysky is nobody now. Did you just bring him up because he is Jewish? If you love counting Jews, the overthrown Yanukovich-era education minister Tabachnik was Jewish-Russian.

    And please tell us about corruption in Ukraine getting… “better?”

    Who said it was getting better?

    Did you bother reading what you replied to? I’ll paste it for you. Try again:

    Ukrainians overthrew their government because they didn’t want the president to consolidate his rule and become a despot, they didn’t want Ukraine to get locked out of Europe and locked in with Russia, and they wanted to stop the corruption that was getting worse. Two of the three things were accomplished. There is no widespread regret in Ukraine that Yanukovich was overthrown. People are disappointed in Poroshenko but this just means they want pro-Western leaders other than him. It might be “nothing” for you that Ukraine didn’t turn into another Uzbekistan or Belarus, but Ukraine’s people disagree.

    Now, you keep avoiding the question I asked you. Here it is, for the 4th or 5th time (I’ve lost count):

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    Read More
  151. AP says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    I think there was pressure put on him to step down before his term was up,which he agreed to do, and there was also an offer made to launch new elections, on a much earlier cycle ... Those election could (and would) have been certified by an independent third party.
     
    This is one of several weaknesses in AP's argument that Yanukovich 'would never have relinquished power voluntarily'. In fact, it poses him with a fatal dilemma:

    A.) Either Yanukovich did indeed step down voluntarily in February 2014, three months before the election he had scheduled for May 2014, and full year and three months before Ukraine's regularly scheduled presidential elections were to have occurred. So if Yanukovich's departure ahead of schedule was voluntary, then AP's assertion that he would never have departed voluntarily has been proven false. Or ...

    B.) Yanukovich's ahead-of-schedule departure was not voluntary at all. And since there was no impeachment proceeding--the only lawful way to remove a president in Ukraine--his 'ouster' fits the legal description of a coup d'état. And if he was forced out in 2014, the US/EU could have just as easily been forced him out in 2015, if it were determined that he had tampered with the elections.

    As it happens, B was the case. We know this because, a few days after he was forced out of Kiev, Yanukovich turned up in Kharkov (I think it was) and told a television audience that he had not resigned and was still president.

    But either way, AP is backed into a corner and his argument is demolished.

    Yanukovich’s ahead-of-schedule departure was not voluntary at all. And since there was no impeachment proceeding–the only lawful way to remove a president in Ukraine–his ‘ouster’ fits the legal description of a coup d’état.

    A coup d’état; French: [ku deta]), sometimes translated as “blow of state” or “hit of state”, but the literal translation is “stroke of the state” – as in the swiping or stroke of a sword; plural: coups d’état, (pronounced like the singular form), also known simply as a coup (/kuː/), putsch or an overthrow, is the illegal and overt seizure of a state by the military or other elites within the state apparatus.

    Mass uprising involving 100,000s of people doesn’t fit the definition. If you don’t know what a coup is, look at what just happened in Turkey. Or what was attempted in the last months of the USSR.

    As for “unlawful” – I suppose it your world it was lawful for Yanukovich to usurp total power over the country but unlawful for him to be removed, when doing so wasn’t in accordance with laws in an environment when he made the laws. How convenient.

    And if he was forced out in 2014, the US/EU could have just as easily been forced him out in 2015, if it were determined that he had tampered with the elections.

    He wasn’t forced out by the US/EU (how many troops were involved again? How many bombers?) but by a mass uprising in the capital in the west and center (including the capital) combined with the disintegration of his security forces, which were apparently caught by surprise and unwilling/unable to crush the uprising. It was more like what happened in Eastern Europe when the communist regimes collapsed. Was that “unlawful” too?

    He might not have been as easily forced out by the people in 2015, if given a year to prepare/regroup. In such a case you wouldn’t be complaining though.

    Read More
  152. HdC says:
    @Anon
    You're missing the point. HdC/Solonto imposes his own standard of evidence on others; I'm just doing the same.

    You are just waving your arms as you have not written one word about your standards of evidence.

    I supplied a well documented study to back up my beliefs, and you???

    Btw, I’m HdC but thank you for the compliment earlier. Solonto Croesus is much more knowledgeable and articulate than I. HdC

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    You haven't indicated what your standard of evidence at all. Thus, I believe you should offer one. If you're not going to do so, then I guess we're done.
  153. SPQR70AD says:

    karl rove who might be mrs Lindsay grahams lover is a fat limp wristed slack jawed powder puff fairy who along with george “magog” bush showed what despicable fake frauds the GOP is and was. trump destroyed both parties that have been destroying us

    Read More
  154. AP says:
    @annamaria
    AP has also pointed out to the "non-indigenousness" of Yanukovitch whose parent, allegedly, were not Ukrainian enough to make him Ukrainian (though the name Yanukovitch sounds quite Ukrainian). Well, "Volodymyr Borysovych Groysman has been the Prime Minister of Ukraine since 14 April 2016. Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family."
    At last, AP is happy with the indigenousness of Groysman.

    Yanukovitch whose parent, allegedly, were not Ukrainian enough

    Yanukovch’s father was Belarussian (half-Belarusian, half-Polish) and his mother was Russian.

    though the name Yanukovitch sounds quite Ukrainian

    Only to someone, like you, who is ignorant when it comes to Eastern Europe.

    Yanukovich is a Belarussian name. His Belarussian father was born in Belarus and moved to Ukraine. Yanukovich grew up in a part of Ukraine close to the Russian border where most of the people, like him, are not ethnic Ukrainians.

    So under the old regime Ukraine had a Russian-Belarussian President, child of migrants, and a Russian PM, who was himself a migrant, having moved to Ukraine from Russia when he was 34 years old.

    These non-Ukrainians were steering Ukraine into union with Russia when the native Ukrainians overthrew them. That really upsets you, doesn’t it.

    Volodymyr Borysovych Groysman has been the Prime Minister of Ukraine since 14 April 2016. Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family.”

    Jews have been in Ukraine for over 1,000 years. I don’t know how long Groysman’s family was in Ukraine, but he was born and grew up right in the central part of the country, in a city that is 90% ethnic Ukrainian. Yanukovich’s PM, in contrast, moved to Ukraine from Russia when he was 34 years old (I am repeating myself, to make sure that you understood).

    Read More
    • Troll: utu
    • Replies: @annamaria
    How pure is Yatsenyuk? How pure is Timoschenko? What about Bandera who was born un Austro-Hungary: is he pure enough to march in his honor and name him a hero of Ukraine?
  155. Joe90 says:

    A brilliant article….which asks a key question at the end…. how long will it be before Trump, like
    President Kennedy, collides head on with the “Intelligence” mafia in the USA?

    Donald Trumps speech last Friday spoke directly to ordinary people in the USA and world wide, about the corrupt political class who had enriched themselves while most ordinary people watched
    their living standards go into decline.

    Not one of the puppets in the mainstream media had either the guts or integrity to applaud President Trumps honesty.

    Read More
  156. annamaria says:

    “Jews have been in Ukraine for over 1,000 years.”
    How sure are you that Groysmans have been living in Ukraine for over 1000 years, but the Yanukovitch ancestors are total newcomers? What about Yatsenyuk? How pure he is? Or how pure is Timoshenko? For example, Bandera, the hero of the anew independent Ukraine, was born in Austria-Hungary. Is he pure enough to march in his honor and make him a hero of Ukrainian people?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    “Jews have been in Ukraine for over 1,000 years.”
    How sure are you that Groysmans have been living in Ukraine for over 1000 years, but the Yanukovitch ancestors are total newcomers?
     
    Read my comment before posting. I already addressed this.

    You have demonstrated that you are into counting Jews. Now you seem to be obsessed with national "purity."

    All the time, however, you keep avoiding the question I asked you. You are, apparently, too dishonest to admit the answer is one you don't like.

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.
  157. annamaria says:
    @AP

    Yanukovitch whose parent, allegedly, were not Ukrainian enough
     
    Yanukovch's father was Belarussian (half-Belarusian, half-Polish) and his mother was Russian.

    though the name Yanukovitch sounds quite Ukrainian
     
    Only to someone, like you, who is ignorant when it comes to Eastern Europe.

    Yanukovich is a Belarussian name. His Belarussian father was born in Belarus and moved to Ukraine. Yanukovich grew up in a part of Ukraine close to the Russian border where most of the people, like him, are not ethnic Ukrainians.

    So under the old regime Ukraine had a Russian-Belarussian President, child of migrants, and a Russian PM, who was himself a migrant, having moved to Ukraine from Russia when he was 34 years old.

    These non-Ukrainians were steering Ukraine into union with Russia when the native Ukrainians overthrew them. That really upsets you, doesn't it.


    Volodymyr Borysovych Groysman has been the Prime Minister of Ukraine since 14 April 2016. Groysman was born in Vinnytsia into a Jewish family.”
     
    Jews have been in Ukraine for over 1,000 years. I don't know how long Groysman's family was in Ukraine, but he was born and grew up right in the central part of the country, in a city that is 90% ethnic Ukrainian. Yanukovich's PM, in contrast, moved to Ukraine from Russia when he was 34 years old (I am repeating myself, to make sure that you understood).

    How pure is Yatsenyuk? How pure is Timoschenko? What about Bandera who was born un Austro-Hungary: is he pure enough to march in his honor and name him a hero of Ukraine?

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Why does national purity matter to you so much? First you started counting Jews, now you bring this up. And of course, bring up Bandera. Anything to avoid the question I asked you:

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    :::::::::::::::::::::::

    In my post I stated that prior to the revolution Ukraine was ruled by a non-Ukrainian, ethnic Russian-Belarussian president and a Prime Minister who was a Russian who moved to Ukraine when he was 34 years old. A child of foreigners and a foreigner, whose government was overthrown by the natives.

    Somehow, in your little mind, you think that this is comparable to asking about someone's distant ancestors.

    But try to answer the question I asked you, if you dare.
  158. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @HdC
    You are just waving your arms as you have not written one word about your standards of evidence.

    I supplied a well documented study to back up my beliefs, and you???

    Btw, I'm HdC but thank you for the compliment earlier. Solonto Croesus is much more knowledgeable and articulate than I. HdC

    You haven’t indicated what your standard of evidence at all. Thus, I believe you should offer one. If you’re not going to do so, then I guess we’re done.

    Read More
  159. Cyrano says:
    @AP

    Or how about this: was the removal from power of Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein a:
    1. Revolution
    2. A coup
    3. A naked aggression
     
    Gaddafi was removed because the Western military bombed his country in support of rebels.

    Saddam was removed because nearly 200,000 Coalition troops invaded the country.

    You are comparing Yanukovich fleeing Ukraine to either of these situations?

    In order to qualify as a revolution, violent overthrow of government is not enough. REVOLUTION implies changes for the better.
     
    That's not what the dictionary says. And the most famous Revolutions, in Russia and France, did not make things better.

    And it has to be indigenous.
     
    Sure. Tell me how many Western troops brought to power the new Ukrainian government. How many of the 100,000s of people in the streets were non-indigenous? Which if the new rulers were non-indigenous?

    You know where the Maidan Revolution was most popular in Ukraine? In the central and western parts. The ethnic "heartland" of the native Ukrainians.

    You know who was non-indigenous? Yanukovich, the president, born in the eastern fringe of Ukraine, to two migrants neither of whom were Ukrainians. The overthrown PM, Azarov, a Russian migrant who arrived in Ukraine in the 1980s whe he was in his 30s. The overthrown defense minister, another Russian who came to Ukraine as an adult.

    Did the West provide money (I hope you won't apply the silly figure of $5 billion) and diplomatic cover and support? Sure. Can you think of overthrows when someone didn't do so? The French did much more for the Americans than the West did for the Ukrainians. Germany sent Lenin by train to cause problems for its Russian rival. Neither of these were foreign coups. Nor was what occurred in Ukraine.

    If a revolution doesn’t bring progress – than it’s a regression. If it’s neither progress nor regression – then I guess it’s nothing. Which is what Ukraine got. Nothing.

     

    Ukrainians overthrew their government because they didn't want the president to consolidate his rule and become a despot, they didn't want Ukraine to get locked out of Europe and locked in with Russia, and they wanted to stop the corruption that was getting worse. Two of the three things were accomplished. There is no widespread regret in Ukraine that Yanukovich was overthrown. People are disappointed in Poroshenko but this just means they want pro-Western leaders other than him. It might be "nothing" for you that Ukraine didn't turn into another Uzbekistan or Belarus, but Ukraine's people disagree.

    Of course French and October revolutions were failures. Any revolution that’s not authorized by US is doomed to failure. Which is why the Ukrainian” revolution” was on track to become a raging success until the Russians intervened. Check in your dictionary again whether a revolution is supposed to bring progress or regress, because if it doesn’t say it there, then it’s it isn’t so. Then after you are done with that, go back to watch CNN – the ministry of truth, because this is too complex for you and it’s not covered in the dictionary.

    Read More
  160. AP says:

    Of course French and October revolutions were failures. Any revolution that’s not authorized by US is doomed to failure.

    Good that you admit that you believe the Bolshevik revolution made things better. Now we know about the type of person we are dealing with.

    Check in your dictionary again whether a revolution is supposed to bring progress or regress, because if it doesn’t say it there, then it’s it isn’t so.

    The Oxford English dictionary is a better source for information about what a word means, than is a random internet weirdo who thinks the Bolshevik revolution brought some sort of improvement to Russia.

    I’ll repeat the definition for you; perhaps you are capable of at least some limited learning:

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/revolution

    A forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system:
    ‘the country has had a socialist revolution’

    You seem to “think” you are too smart for the dictionary. Good for you. But you’re not.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    I am not only too smart for the dictionary, I am too smart for you too. The discussion should have ended when you said that French and the October revolution were not improvements. Sure, feudalism and monarchy were better. And Libya and Syria are much better today, and so is Afghanistan, not to mention Ukraine. It’s quite a Midas touch, whatever country gets in touch with the fabulous democracy – it turns to dust. And it’s all Russia’s fault too. They gave you 26 years of free reign, and the only thing that you managed to accomplish is to show that you should hardly be in charge of your own country, let alone of the whole world.
  161. AP says:
    @annamaria
    "Jews have been in Ukraine for over 1,000 years."
    How sure are you that Groysmans have been living in Ukraine for over 1000 years, but the Yanukovitch ancestors are total newcomers? What about Yatsenyuk? How pure he is? Or how pure is Timoshenko? For example, Bandera, the hero of the anew independent Ukraine, was born in Austria-Hungary. Is he pure enough to march in his honor and make him a hero of Ukrainian people?

    “Jews have been in Ukraine for over 1,000 years.”
    How sure are you that Groysmans have been living in Ukraine for over 1000 years, but the Yanukovitch ancestors are total newcomers?

    Read my comment before posting. I already addressed this.

    You have demonstrated that you are into counting Jews. Now you seem to be obsessed with national “purity.”

    All the time, however, you keep avoiding the question I asked you. You are, apparently, too dishonest to admit the answer is one you don’t like.

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    You know , AP,

    I do not believe you are a bad person, but I think you are off your rocker if you are trying to compare Victoria Nuland's staged "coup" in the Ukraine with the American Revolution.

    It is pretty silly, AP.... everybody on Unz. knows better........you should just let it go.
  162. AP says:
    @annamaria
    How pure is Yatsenyuk? How pure is Timoschenko? What about Bandera who was born un Austro-Hungary: is he pure enough to march in his honor and name him a hero of Ukraine?

    Why does national purity matter to you so much? First you started counting Jews, now you bring this up. And of course, bring up Bandera. Anything to avoid the question I asked you:

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    :::::::::::::::::::::::

    In my post I stated that prior to the revolution Ukraine was ruled by a non-Ukrainian, ethnic Russian-Belarussian president and a Prime Minister who was a Russian who moved to Ukraine when he was 34 years old. A child of foreigners and a foreigner, whose government was overthrown by the natives.

    Somehow, in your little mind, you think that this is comparable to asking about someone’s distant ancestors.

    But try to answer the question I asked you, if you dare.

    Read More
  163. alexander says:
    @AP

    “Jews have been in Ukraine for over 1,000 years.”
    How sure are you that Groysmans have been living in Ukraine for over 1000 years, but the Yanukovitch ancestors are total newcomers?
     
    Read my comment before posting. I already addressed this.

    You have demonstrated that you are into counting Jews. Now you seem to be obsessed with national "purity."

    All the time, however, you keep avoiding the question I asked you. You are, apparently, too dishonest to admit the answer is one you don't like.

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    You know , AP,

    I do not believe you are a bad person, but I think you are off your rocker if you are trying to compare Victoria Nuland’s staged “coup” in the Ukraine with the American Revolution.

    It is pretty silly, AP…. everybody on Unz. knows better……..you should just let it go.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I think you are off your rocker if you are trying to compare Victoria Nuland’s staged “coup” in the Ukraine with the American Revolution.
     
    The comparison was limited to the extent of outsider intervention and how this makes something a foreign plot or "coup."

    If the Maidan revolution was "staged" by Victoria Nuland, then this must have involved considerable actions by her or the West. So what were those actions? Distributing cookies in the square, financing NGOs, and providing diplomatic support. If that's enough to qualify something as a foreign coup, then what to consider the American Revolution? The French provided a general and thousands of troops on the ground, a naval blockade, and 13 billion dollars of aid in today's money to the American rebels.
  164. annamaria says:

    “You have demonstrated that you are into counting Jews.”
    You have initiated the theme of “indigenousness” (remember? – by claiming that Yanukovitch was not Ukrainian enough for you) – so take responsibility for your “purity” check.
    Your demands re French and the young United States are ridiculous (and not only for me on this forum). There is no valid comparison between the disaster of the State. Dept-guided devolution in Ukraine and the massive event in North America, which had been guided by the true statesmen (and which happened centuries ago). Your attempts at equating the founding fathers (Franklin and such) and General Lafayette with the activists of Right Sector, criminal Kolomojsky, corrupted Poroschenko, and CIA’ Brennan are pitiful. The latter are pigmies. What innovative revolutionary program the neo-Nazi-sprinkled government in Kiev has offered to the world? The demands for a visa-free travel to EU? What else? The banderites’ marches for the amusement of the civilized world? Where are your outstanding statesmen? – The chocolate Kind Poroschenko who continues making gesheft in Russia, while sending young conscripts to be killed in East Ukraine? Or may be Yats, a banker and the former prime minister of Ukraine with a 2%-approval rating (the margin of error). What about preserving the greatest riches of Ukraine, the black earth? Monsanto is ready to operate in Ukraine (http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/22/monsanto-and-ukraine/). Bidens have their own ideas about mineral resource of Ukraine. And where is the Ukrainian gold reserve? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/ukraine-admits-its-gold-gone
    Sorry to inform you, but Ukraine has been suffering a heist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    “You have demonstrated that you are into counting Jews.”

    You have initiated the theme of “indigenousness” (remember? – by claiming that Yanukovitch was not Ukrainian enough for you) – so take responsibility for your “purity” check
     
    If you claim that the true and obvious statement that the child of immigrants and a man who moved into the country at age 34 are not indigenous has something to do with "purity checks" you are either foolish or dishonest.

    Your demands re French and the young United States are ridiculous (and not only for me on this forum).
     
    So ridiculous that you are afraid to answer the question.

    There is no valid comparison between the disaster of the State. Dept-guided devolution in Ukraine and the massive event in North America,
     
    There is, in terms of comparing the extent of foreign involvement and what his means with respect to whether each event was a native uprising versus a foreign"coup."

    So answer the question:

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    Your attempts at equating the founding fathers (Franklin and such) and General Lafayette with the activists of Right Sector
     
    I was very clear when I said I made no such comparisons between people and that the comparison of particular people is a diversion by you away from the question.

    So many efforts by you, to avoid a simple question. It says a lot about the answer you know it true, but refuse to say.

    So answer the question, rather than bringing in Monsanto and Joe Biden.

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.
  165. Cyrano says:
    @AP

    Of course French and October revolutions were failures. Any revolution that’s not authorized by US is doomed to failure.
     
    Good that you admit that you believe the Bolshevik revolution made things better. Now we know about the type of person we are dealing with.

    Check in your dictionary again whether a revolution is supposed to bring progress or regress, because if it doesn’t say it there, then it’s it isn’t so.
     
    The Oxford English dictionary is a better source for information about what a word means, than is a random internet weirdo who thinks the Bolshevik revolution brought some sort of improvement to Russia.

    I'll repeat the definition for you; perhaps you are capable of at least some limited learning:

    https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/revolution

    A forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system:
    ‘the country has had a socialist revolution’

    You seem to "think" you are too smart for the dictionary. Good for you. But you're not.

    I am not only too smart for the dictionary, I am too smart for you too. The discussion should have ended when you said that French and the October revolution were not improvements. Sure, feudalism and monarchy were better. And Libya and Syria are much better today, and so is Afghanistan, not to mention Ukraine. It’s quite a Midas touch, whatever country gets in touch with the fabulous democracy – it turns to dust. And it’s all Russia’s fault too. They gave you 26 years of free reign, and the only thing that you managed to accomplish is to show that you should hardly be in charge of your own country, let alone of the whole world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I am not only too smart for the dictionary, I am too smart for you too
     
    You are at least a standard deviation less smart than me, rest assured. As proven by your very next sentence:

    The discussion should have ended when you said that French and the October revolution were not improvements. Sure, feudalism and monarchy were better
     
    Yes, Russia under Nicholas was indeed better than it had been under Lenin and Stalin. The latter did a good job hobbling Russia enough to prevent it from emerging as a hyperpower. Losing territory, tens of millions of people (deaths from purges and famines, plus resultant nonexistant children and grandchildren of those who had died), almost losing a war to a country with less than half its population (enabling that country to slaughter another 20 million or so people in the process), falling further behind the rest of the civilized world, was certainly "improvement."

    Tell us again, genius, how you know better what a word means, than does the Oxford English Dictionary.

    They gave you 26 years of free reign, and the only thing that you managed to accomplish is to show that you should hardly be in charge of your own country,
     
    And yet your ilk complain when the Russian-Belarrussian president and Russian immigrant PM were thrown out by the natives...
  166. AP says:
    @alexander
    You know , AP,

    I do not believe you are a bad person, but I think you are off your rocker if you are trying to compare Victoria Nuland's staged "coup" in the Ukraine with the American Revolution.

    It is pretty silly, AP.... everybody on Unz. knows better........you should just let it go.

    I think you are off your rocker if you are trying to compare Victoria Nuland’s staged “coup” in the Ukraine with the American Revolution.

    The comparison was limited to the extent of outsider intervention and how this makes something a foreign plot or “coup.”

    If the Maidan revolution was “staged” by Victoria Nuland, then this must have involved considerable actions by her or the West. So what were those actions? Distributing cookies in the square, financing NGOs, and providing diplomatic support. If that’s enough to qualify something as a foreign coup, then what to consider the American Revolution? The French provided a general and thousands of troops on the ground, a naval blockade, and 13 billion dollars of aid in today’s money to the American rebels.

    Read More
    • Replies: @hobo
    If the Maidan revolution was “staged” by Victoria Nuland, then this must have involved considerable actions by her or the West.

    Missing from this dialogue is the crucial role of the oligarchs in staging the revolution. Nuland’s role can probably be best characterized as an enabler and facilitator. The street level uprising concealed what was probably the determinant factor behind the revolution - the infighting between various oligarchic factions for control and continued looting of the Ukrainian economy. One method of Yanukovich and his ‘family’s’ expansion was to target the assets of other oligarchs. These oligarchs controlled the media and therefore had the capacity to frame the narrative, aligning (and probably instigating) the uprising with their objective - the premature removal of Yanukovich from power. It was purely a case of self-preservation.

    Below are excerpts from an article written in Feb. 2013, a full year before the Maidan revolution. It may provide a perspective that differs somewhat from the popular narrative.


    As its business empire expands, Yanukovych clan targets top oligarchs
    THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2013
    http://www.ukrweekly.com/calendar/TOC/13/06.htm

    The ever-expanding business empire of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is now preying on top oligarchs, forcing them to sell their business assets to family interests and cease their political activity.

    snip

    … an elaborate attempt by its billionaire owner, Igor Kolomoisky, to evade being swallowed up by the Yanukovych business clan, which is voraciously pursuing valuable properties to enhance its influence and control of the country

    snip

    Compared to someone like Mr. Firtash, who controls 15 to 20 percent of the entire Ukrainian economy, Mr. Kolomoisky is an easier target for the family, controlling between 5 and 10 percent “which is enough to widen its resource base,” said Mr.Romanenko

    snip

    >-“With this group coming to power, they’ve begun to force out others and now we have open financial-corporate wars in very rough forms,” said Dr. Oleh Soskin, chair of the Institute of Society Transformation in Kyiv. “Yanukovych, his sons and his closest circle are devouring and taking over all the smaller players around them on Ukraine’s political and economic map.” Western observers, such as Dr. Anders Aslund of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington and Dr. Alexander Motyl of Rutgers University in Newark, were predicting the current scenario as early as the autumn of 2012. They also predicted the oligarchs would retaliate politically, which hasn’t happened yet

    snip

    “These elections will be either the final step in Yanukovych’s consolidation of power or his opponents’ last chance to disrupt his family rule,” Dr. Aslund wrote in late October. “This time, however, the most palpable threat to his rule comes not from the crowds on the street but the elite business-men he has alienated.”
  167. AP says:
    @annamaria
    "You have demonstrated that you are into counting Jews."
    You have initiated the theme of "indigenousness" (remember? - by claiming that Yanukovitch was not Ukrainian enough for you) - so take responsibility for your "purity" check.
    Your demands re French and the young United States are ridiculous (and not only for me on this forum). There is no valid comparison between the disaster of the State. Dept-guided devolution in Ukraine and the massive event in North America, which had been guided by the true statesmen (and which happened centuries ago). Your attempts at equating the founding fathers (Franklin and such) and General Lafayette with the activists of Right Sector, criminal Kolomojsky, corrupted Poroschenko, and CIA' Brennan are pitiful. The latter are pigmies. What innovative revolutionary program the neo-Nazi-sprinkled government in Kiev has offered to the world? The demands for a visa-free travel to EU? What else? The banderites' marches for the amusement of the civilized world? Where are your outstanding statesmen? - The chocolate Kind Poroschenko who continues making gesheft in Russia, while sending young conscripts to be killed in East Ukraine? Or may be Yats, a banker and the former prime minister of Ukraine with a 2%-approval rating (the margin of error). What about preserving the greatest riches of Ukraine, the black earth? Monsanto is ready to operate in Ukraine (http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/08/22/monsanto-and-ukraine/). Bidens have their own ideas about mineral resource of Ukraine. And where is the Ukrainian gold reserve? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-11-18/ukraine-admits-its-gold-gone
    Sorry to inform you, but Ukraine has been suffering a heist.

    “You have demonstrated that you are into counting Jews.”

    You have initiated the theme of “indigenousness” (remember? – by claiming that Yanukovitch was not Ukrainian enough for you) – so take responsibility for your “purity” check

    If you claim that the true and obvious statement that the child of immigrants and a man who moved into the country at age 34 are not indigenous has something to do with “purity checks” you are either foolish or dishonest.

    Your demands re French and the young United States are ridiculous (and not only for me on this forum).

    So ridiculous that you are afraid to answer the question.

    There is no valid comparison between the disaster of the State. Dept-guided devolution in Ukraine and the massive event in North America,

    There is, in terms of comparing the extent of foreign involvement and what his means with respect to whether each event was a native uprising versus a foreign”coup.”

    So answer the question:

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    Your attempts at equating the founding fathers (Franklin and such) and General Lafayette with the activists of Right Sector

    I was very clear when I said I made no such comparisons between people and that the comparison of particular people is a diversion by you away from the question.

    So many efforts by you, to avoid a simple question. It says a lot about the answer you know it true, but refuse to say.

    So answer the question, rather than bringing in Monsanto and Joe Biden.

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    Read More
  168. AP says:
    @Cyrano
    I am not only too smart for the dictionary, I am too smart for you too. The discussion should have ended when you said that French and the October revolution were not improvements. Sure, feudalism and monarchy were better. And Libya and Syria are much better today, and so is Afghanistan, not to mention Ukraine. It’s quite a Midas touch, whatever country gets in touch with the fabulous democracy – it turns to dust. And it’s all Russia’s fault too. They gave you 26 years of free reign, and the only thing that you managed to accomplish is to show that you should hardly be in charge of your own country, let alone of the whole world.

    I am not only too smart for the dictionary, I am too smart for you too

    You are at least a standard deviation less smart than me, rest assured. As proven by your very next sentence:

    The discussion should have ended when you said that French and the October revolution were not improvements. Sure, feudalism and monarchy were better

    Yes, Russia under Nicholas was indeed better than it had been under Lenin and Stalin. The latter did a good job hobbling Russia enough to prevent it from emerging as a hyperpower. Losing territory, tens of millions of people (deaths from purges and famines, plus resultant nonexistant children and grandchildren of those who had died), almost losing a war to a country with less than half its population (enabling that country to slaughter another 20 million or so people in the process), falling further behind the rest of the civilized world, was certainly “improvement.”

    Tell us again, genius, how you know better what a word means, than does the Oxford English Dictionary.

    They gave you 26 years of free reign, and the only thing that you managed to accomplish is to show that you should hardly be in charge of your own country,

    And yet your ilk complain when the Russian-Belarrussian president and Russian immigrant PM were thrown out by the natives…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano

    They gave you 26 years of free reign, and the only thing that you managed to accomplish is to show that you should hardly be in charge of your own country,

    And yet your ilk complain when the Russian-Belarrussian president and Russian immigrant PM were thrown out by the natives…
     
    I was actually talking about US in that particular paragraph, not Ukraine. That just shows how clueless you are.

    The French and the Russian revolution actually established the standards by which any other revolution should be measured in terms of accomplishments. Without the October revolution it’s doubtful whether Russia would have survived as a state.

    The only knowledge you have about communism comes from second and third hand sources. I was born under communism (socialism really, but communism sounds much more menacing to the dummies in the west), and I don’t need anybody to teach me what communism was all about. I have lived under both systems and I know the strengths and weaknesses of both.

    My experience of communism is first hand. Yours comes from that fountain of truth – CNN and the last thing I need is a dumb f**k like you to teach me about communism. I can make a difference between propaganda and truth better because I have experienced both communist and “democracy” propaganda. While you have to consult the dictionary to find out what revolution really means. What more do I need to say?
  169. @AP
    First - sorry for the snappy tone.

    I do believe that Yanukovytch proved to be a very corrupt leader, I think this is quite true, but he was elected democratically, at least this is my understanding.
     
    Correct. He was indeed elected democratically. He won a narrow election (49% to 45.5% in a two-person race, after the runoff). This is the part that those who oppose Maidan always mention. They ignore the rest, however:

    - Yanukovich won with limited powers. He was facing an elected, Opposition-led parliament.

    - After winning, through a combination of bribes and threats he "flipped" the parliament, making it a Yanukovich-controlled one. This changeover wasn't done through new elections. So he essentially annulled the previous election results.

    - Through bribes and threats he got inconvenient Constitutional Court members to resign and replaced them with loyalists from his home town (like the judge who vacated his assault conviction)

    - The new parliament and new court then expanded the Presidential powers, delayed the parliamentary election by a year, and changed the election rules specifically in order to make it harder for the Opposition to win new elections. It made as its prime minister a Russian who moved from Russia to Ukraine in the 1980s when he was already in his mid-thirties.

    So, the people elected a president who was supposed to have limited powers and to have been constrained by an Opposition parliament. But, without any new elections or referendums, they ended up with a guy in total control of all branches of government.

    He then pursued his agenda, dividing the country's economy amongst his cronies, while throwing bones to his constituents who were largely non-Ukrainians (Russian as official second language in certain states).

    In the 2012 elections, the Opposition scored a decisive popular vote victory. If the rules had been like they had been in 2010, they would have controlled the parliament. But thanks to the elections changes, they were shut out of power despite winning the vote. These are the parties who took over the country after the Maidan revolution.

    The presidential election was about a year away. Two opposition candidates were leading him by double-digits in the polls. Yanukovich passed a law that made one candidate ineligible for running (it was a new residency law banning people who had lived abroad too long from becoming president - this candidate, the boxer Klitschko, had lived and trained in Germany). The other had his offices raided by the police. Both of these candidates were active on the side of the Maidan revolution.

    An analogy to the USA - this would be like Obama barely winning an election and being faced with an elected Republican congress. He would the get the Supreme Court's conservatives to resign and replacing them with some corrupt local Chicago judges, without new election force the congress to flip Democratic and make a Mexican immigrant the new speaker of the House/Senate Majority leader (Ukraine's legislature is unicameral). With all three branches of government fully under his control, he would then pursue a divisive agenda as his popularity diminishes. Election rules would be fixed to make it impossible for the other side to win elections.

    America's system is designed to prevent something like this from happening. Ukraine's didn't do so.

    I think there was pressure put on him to step down before his term was up,which he agreed to do, and there was also an offer made to launch new elections, on a much earlier cycle
     
    After he lost control of the country through mass unrest he agreed to move up presidential elections in order to placate the protests. This was widely and credibly viewed in Ukraine as an attempt to either wait out the protests while shoring up and beefing up security (replacing police and military who had wavered in their loyalty, bringing more Russians from Crimea into Kiev, etc.) to be better prepared for a violent "rematch", and an opportunity to steal as much as possible/destroy incriminating evidence for the flight to Russia if need be. Given his established record of behavior, it was taken for granted that Yanukovich wasn't acting in good faith.

    The result was the violent “Maidan coup” where we installed “our man ” Yatsenyuk as Prime Minister...Who was placed in power by our Neocons ….not elected.
     
    Yatseniuk was the guy in charge of the largest Opposition Party. He would have been PM had the 2012 election been fair (remember, the Opposition had won the popular vote in that election but the new rules kept them out of power). That might be why Nuland was pushing for him to become PM in the tape.

    So he was "elected" in 2012. After the revolution another election was run and he continued to be PM based on the results of that election (his party came in a close 2nd place but was in coalition with the winning party). Pro-Russians will say that the new election wasn't fair because the Communists were banned. Well, if you look at the electoral map you'll see that without Crimea and Donbas the pro-Russian side had zero chance of winning anyways.

    As for installed - sorry, we did not send troops there. Maybe the French installed Washington? They actually did send troops.

    Thank you. It is such a relief to learn that Victoria Nuland is actually committed to democracy via free and fair elections. I shall henceforth refer to her in reverential terms. What a loss for the US should her talents be neglected by Trump.

    Read More
  170. @Anon
    You're missing the point. HdC/Solonto imposes his own standard of evidence on others; I'm just doing the same.

    No, the point was made that the source was not credible. I read the article and found it to be very detailed, in fact so detailed that it would be easily refuted if false. So far nobody here has done that.

    Big Media (NYT, WAPO, LAT etc, etc) is not credible given the ongoing parroting of 9/11 fiction, weapons of mass destruction, Putin’s election meddling etc, etc. Anyone quoting from them, or indeed even supporting them financially by purchasing their offerings has outed themselves as a fool based on the fool-me-twice principle

    Read More
  171. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @NoseytheDuke
    No, the point was made that the source was not credible. I read the article and found it to be very detailed, in fact so detailed that it would be easily refuted if false. So far nobody here has done that.

    Big Media (NYT, WAPO, LAT etc, etc) is not credible given the ongoing parroting of 9/11 fiction, weapons of mass destruction, Putin's election meddling etc, etc. Anyone quoting from them, or indeed even supporting them financially by purchasing their offerings has outed themselves as a fool based on the fool-me-twice principle

    I don’t recall asking your opinion.

    Read More
  172. @Don Diego
    As regards the statement " Noam Chomsky does not merely keep quiet about it, but mocks students who raise logical questions prompted by their curiosity, thereby discouraging a whole generation studying at universities and active in civil rights causes. "
    He not only has ridiculed those who question the official story on 9/11, he played the same role in defending the Warren Commission and telling the left to "not go there", to not question the official story. The late Alexander Cockburn took similar positions on both 9/11 and the JFK assassination. A good book mentioning Chomsky and Cockburn´s acceptance of the Warren Commission report is HISTORY WILL NOT ABSOLVE US by Schotz.

    Yes it is always important to call out gatekeepers, left and right, to which Chomsky is a notorious amalgam poisoning the waters with his learned hypocrisy of the smoozy nerdy authoritarian.

    Yes 9/11 can not be reckoned without referencing the the JFK assassination and the art of the cover-up, the Warren Commission.

    When asked as to what happened on 9/11 I have replied for quite a while that the only probable cause is that the bullet that went through Kennedy and Connally actually kept going…emerging
    from a wormhole to be that which struck North Tower, then the South Tower, then the Penatagon Shenksville and then lets not forget Building Seven to wrap up the day. Basically the official story is bunk, instead of a single bullet, we have the magic passport?

    Look Ahfganistan and Iraq need to sue for retributions per the destruction of their nations due to lies. This may be the only way to break out of this…..other then Trump….He may have already shown a card, that things go smooth……

    Here is a relevant article by Ray Peat….as it discusses academic authoritarians, where Chomsky is the archetype.

    http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/authoritarians.shtml

    Read More
  173. […] is no longer a full democracy, EIU warns – CNBC 1/25    Karl Rove’s prophecy – Unz Review 1/25    Trump administration orders media blackout at EPA – LA […]

    Read More
  174. You appear to have mistaken me for a person who cares about what you do or don’t ask for. I don’t.

    Read More
  175. Cyrano says:
    @AP

    I am not only too smart for the dictionary, I am too smart for you too
     
    You are at least a standard deviation less smart than me, rest assured. As proven by your very next sentence:

    The discussion should have ended when you said that French and the October revolution were not improvements. Sure, feudalism and monarchy were better
     
    Yes, Russia under Nicholas was indeed better than it had been under Lenin and Stalin. The latter did a good job hobbling Russia enough to prevent it from emerging as a hyperpower. Losing territory, tens of millions of people (deaths from purges and famines, plus resultant nonexistant children and grandchildren of those who had died), almost losing a war to a country with less than half its population (enabling that country to slaughter another 20 million or so people in the process), falling further behind the rest of the civilized world, was certainly "improvement."

    Tell us again, genius, how you know better what a word means, than does the Oxford English Dictionary.

    They gave you 26 years of free reign, and the only thing that you managed to accomplish is to show that you should hardly be in charge of your own country,
     
    And yet your ilk complain when the Russian-Belarrussian president and Russian immigrant PM were thrown out by the natives...

    They gave you 26 years of free reign, and the only thing that you managed to accomplish is to show that you should hardly be in charge of your own country,

    And yet your ilk complain when the Russian-Belarrussian president and Russian immigrant PM were thrown out by the natives…

    I was actually talking about US in that particular paragraph, not Ukraine. That just shows how clueless you are.

    The French and the Russian revolution actually established the standards by which any other revolution should be measured in terms of accomplishments. Without the October revolution it’s doubtful whether Russia would have survived as a state.

    The only knowledge you have about communism comes from second and third hand sources. I was born under communism (socialism really, but communism sounds much more menacing to the dummies in the west), and I don’t need anybody to teach me what communism was all about. I have lived under both systems and I know the strengths and weaknesses of both.

    My experience of communism is first hand. Yours comes from that fountain of truth – CNN and the last thing I need is a dumb f**k like you to teach me about communism. I can make a difference between propaganda and truth better because I have experienced both communist and “democracy” propaganda. While you have to consult the dictionary to find out what revolution really means. What more do I need to say?

    Read More
  176. AP says:

    “They gave you 26 years of free reign, and the only thing that you managed to accomplish is to show that you should hardly be in charge of your own country,

    And yet your ilk complain when the Russian-Belarrussian president and Russian immigrant PM were thrown out by the natives…”

    I was actually talking about US in that particular paragraph, not Ukraine. That just shows how clueless you are.

    Uh huh. The fact that we are discussing Ukraine throughout these posts and that Ukraine became independent 26 years ago (in August) was a complete coincidence.

    The French and the Russian revolution actually established the standards by which any other revolution should be measured in terms of accomplishments.

    In the case of Russia – derailing a country’s progress, costing tens of millions of people (the ones killed plus the descendants that the dead did not have) , losing territory, almost losing a war to a country with half the population, costing an additional 20 million people, demographic decline, replacement of Russian culture with cheap Sovok culture, and ending up poorer relatively speaking then before the Revolution* certainly are accomplishments.

    I was born under communism (socialism really, but communism sounds much more menacing to the dummies in the west)

    Ah. A proud example of homo sovieticus.

    Hello, Sharikov. Product of grotesque and unnatural experiment.

    My experience of communism is first hand. Yours comes from that fountain of truth – CNN

    Your obsession with CNN is funny.

    While you have to consult the dictionary to find out what revolution really means.

    Precision with respect to definitions of words is preferable to your own made-up idea of what words mean, the idea of a Sharikov.

    * In 1913 Russia had a slightly greater per capita income than Portugal and Greece. By 1990 the USSR had about 70% of Greece and Portugal’s per capita GDP. In 1913, Russia had 48% of France’s per capita GDP. In 1990 the USSR had 38% of France’s per capita GDP. If you blame perestroika – in 1973 the USSR was still worse in comparison to Russia in 1913, relative to these countries. So all that bloodshed and repression and loss of territory and all your country got was poorer and uglier.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    GDP per capita in US is now what? 50K? That means that actually every American gets 50K a year to live on? After the top 2-300 billioners take let’s say half of that and let’s say actually for better accuracy the top 1% takes maybe 70-80% of the GDP, the average American is left with about 20% out of those 50k – which is about 10k. Your statistics are meaningless and they prove that you have no intelligence or imagination. It's just a rough estimate and I am probably way off - there is no way average American gets 10k a year, but I didn’t look this up anywhere on the Internet – I don’t have to, it’s called common sense. You, on the other hand, might have to consult the dictionary. And yes "my" country Russia (you see the "" marks mean that I am not Russian) got uglier while your country is currently undergoing a beautification program and is getting better and better.
  177. Miro23 says:

    For what it is worth, I’ve had regular dealings with a some of the upper echelons of Ukrainians since the Revolution and would summarize their opinions as follows:

    A feeling of hopelessness about the endemic corruption. Participation is a matter of survival but they don’t see any change and generally want to exit the country with their families.

    There’s a (Western) Ukrainian identity something like the identity of Scotland with regard to England. They are reluctant to admit it, but in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea the population are pro-Russian (many ethnic Russians) and supporting of Putin’s intervention. The Ukrainians living in Donetsk etc. aren’t so political any more. They just want to be left alone and get their pensions.

    The US isn’t perceived as having much of a role in anything. The Revolution had mass local support, with the feeling that it has been hijacked, and a new general disillusionment with always corrupt leadership. The real wish seems to be to get closer to Europe, as represented by Poland – where events are followed quite closely, and which has a generally friendly and positive attitude towards them. Neocon participation is hardly commented on and seems to be part of the US/Isreal/Syria story aimed at provoking Russia.

    Russia is troubled by the loss of Ukraine as England would be by the loss of Scotland but there doesn’t seem to be any deep enmity between Russian and Ukrainian people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    That's quite accurate but too reality-based for some of the commenters here.
  178. Cyrano says:
    @AP

    "They gave you 26 years of free reign, and the only thing that you managed to accomplish is to show that you should hardly be in charge of your own country,

    And yet your ilk complain when the Russian-Belarrussian president and Russian immigrant PM were thrown out by the natives…"

    I was actually talking about US in that particular paragraph, not Ukraine. That just shows how clueless you are.
     

    Uh huh. The fact that we are discussing Ukraine throughout these posts and that Ukraine became independent 26 years ago (in August) was a complete coincidence.

    The French and the Russian revolution actually established the standards by which any other revolution should be measured in terms of accomplishments.
     
    In the case of Russia - derailing a country's progress, costing tens of millions of people (the ones killed plus the descendants that the dead did not have) , losing territory, almost losing a war to a country with half the population, costing an additional 20 million people, demographic decline, replacement of Russian culture with cheap Sovok culture, and ending up poorer relatively speaking then before the Revolution* certainly are accomplishments.

    I was born under communism (socialism really, but communism sounds much more menacing to the dummies in the west)
     
    Ah. A proud example of homo sovieticus.

    Hello, Sharikov. Product of grotesque and unnatural experiment.


    My experience of communism is first hand. Yours comes from that fountain of truth – CNN
     
    Your obsession with CNN is funny.

    While you have to consult the dictionary to find out what revolution really means.
     
    Precision with respect to definitions of words is preferable to your own made-up idea of what words mean, the idea of a Sharikov.

    * In 1913 Russia had a slightly greater per capita income than Portugal and Greece. By 1990 the USSR had about 70% of Greece and Portugal's per capita GDP. In 1913, Russia had 48% of France's per capita GDP. In 1990 the USSR had 38% of France's per capita GDP. If you blame perestroika - in 1973 the USSR was still worse in comparison to Russia in 1913, relative to these countries. So all that bloodshed and repression and loss of territory and all your country got was poorer and uglier.

    GDP per capita in US is now what? 50K? That means that actually every American gets 50K a year to live on? After the top 2-300 billioners take let’s say half of that and let’s say actually for better accuracy the top 1% takes maybe 70-80% of the GDP, the average American is left with about 20% out of those 50k – which is about 10k. Your statistics are meaningless and they prove that you have no intelligence or imagination. It’s just a rough estimate and I am probably way off – there is no way average American gets 10k a year, but I didn’t look this up anywhere on the Internet – I don’t have to, it’s called common sense. You, on the other hand, might have to consult the dictionary. And yes “my” country Russia (you see the “” marks mean that I am not Russian) got uglier while your country is currently undergoing a beautification program and is getting better and better.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    GDP per capita in US is now what? 50K? That means that actually every American gets 50K a year to live on?
     
    Median household income in the USA in 2013 was $51,000.

    Shall I consult a dictionary in order to teach you what the word "median" means?

    It means that half of US households earned more than $51k per year, and half less.

    Median individual income is $32,000. It varies by education level.

    After the top 2-300 billioners take let’s say half of that and let’s say actually for better accuracy the top 1% takes maybe 70-80% of the GDP, the average American is left with about 20% out of those 50k – which is about 10k.
     
    Its very cute when Sharikov tries to do math and comes up with his conclusions about how much the average American really makes.

    Meanwhile, so many sacrifices just to fall behind Portugal and Greece.
  179. Alden says:
    @Anon
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932

    But I suppose all those sources reporting on this election are a Jewish plot?

    Actually, yes, even middle school children are taught that Wikepedia is full of falsehoods. It’s common knowledge that Wikepedia is not to be trusted about anything Only the ignorant and naive trust the information in Wikepedia. Since you trust the information in Wikepedia you must be ignorant and naive.

    Get yourself to a university library or the library of congress if you want to learn the truth about anything

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The Information about the 1932 elections in Germany is not only reported on Wikipedia. You're profoundly ignorant.
  180. hobo says:
    @AP

    I think you are off your rocker if you are trying to compare Victoria Nuland’s staged “coup” in the Ukraine with the American Revolution.
     
    The comparison was limited to the extent of outsider intervention and how this makes something a foreign plot or "coup."

    If the Maidan revolution was "staged" by Victoria Nuland, then this must have involved considerable actions by her or the West. So what were those actions? Distributing cookies in the square, financing NGOs, and providing diplomatic support. If that's enough to qualify something as a foreign coup, then what to consider the American Revolution? The French provided a general and thousands of troops on the ground, a naval blockade, and 13 billion dollars of aid in today's money to the American rebels.

    If the Maidan revolution was “staged” by Victoria Nuland, then this must have involved considerable actions by her or the West.

    Missing from this dialogue is the crucial role of the oligarchs in staging the revolution. Nuland’s role can probably be best characterized as an enabler and facilitator. The street level uprising concealed what was probably the determinant factor behind the revolution – the infighting between various oligarchic factions for control and continued looting of the Ukrainian economy. One method of Yanukovich and his ‘family’s’ expansion was to target the assets of other oligarchs. These oligarchs controlled the media and therefore had the capacity to frame the narrative, aligning (and probably instigating) the uprising with their objective – the premature removal of Yanukovich from power. It was purely a case of self-preservation.

    Below are excerpts from an article written in Feb. 2013, a full year before the Maidan revolution. It may provide a perspective that differs somewhat from the popular narrative.

    As its business empire expands, Yanukovych clan targets top oligarchs
    THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2013

    http://www.ukrweekly.com/calendar/TOC/13/06.htm

    The ever-expanding business empire of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is now preying on top oligarchs, forcing them to sell their business assets to family interests and cease their political activity.

    snip

    … an elaborate attempt by its billionaire owner, Igor Kolomoisky, to evade being swallowed up by the Yanukovych business clan, which is voraciously pursuing valuable properties to enhance its influence and control of the country

    snip

    Compared to someone like Mr. Firtash, who controls 15 to 20 percent of the entire Ukrainian economy, Mr. Kolomoisky is an easier target for the family, controlling between 5 and 10 percent “which is enough to widen its resource base,” said Mr.Romanenko

    snip

    >-“With this group coming to power, they’ve begun to force out others and now we have open financial-corporate wars in very rough forms,” said Dr. Oleh Soskin, chair of the Institute of Society Transformation in Kyiv. “Yanukovych, his sons and his closest circle are devouring and taking over all the smaller players around them on Ukraine’s political and economic map.” Western observers, such as Dr. Anders Aslund of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington and Dr. Alexander Motyl of Rutgers University in Newark, were predicting the current scenario as early as the autumn of 2012. They also predicted the oligarchs would retaliate politically, which hasn’t happened yet

    snip

    “These elections will be either the final step in Yanukovych’s consolidation of power or his opponents’ last chance to disrupt his family rule,” Dr. Aslund wrote in late October. “This time, however, the most palpable threat to his rule comes not from the crowds on the street but the elite business-men he has alienated.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    This is perhaps the most informed of the comments here.

    If the Maidan revolution was “staged” by Victoria Nuland, then this must have involved considerable actions by her or the West.
     
    Yes, and her and the West's actions were not that considerable. They provided diplomatic support and cover, and had provided funds to some of the NGOs. That's about it. As you correctly wrote, " Nuland’s role can probably be best characterized as an enabler and facilitator." The real action was local. It was a native uprising.

    The street level uprising concealed what was probably the determinant factor behind the revolution – the infighting between various oligarchic factions for control and continued looting of the Ukrainian economy. One method of Yanukovich and his ‘family’s’ expansion was to target the assets of other oligarchs. These oligarchs controlled the media and therefore had the capacity to frame the narrative, aligning (and probably instigating) the uprising with their objective – the premature removal of Yanukovich from power. It was purely a case of self-preservation.
     
    This was certainly a very important part of it. Not only the regular Ukrainian people, but certainly other oligarchs did not want to see Yanukovich consolidate his power and become some sort of Central-Asian style despot. That many of the initial figures in government were idealistic reformers, that the tone had a nationalistic/populistic one, and that the country shifted its course Westward in accordance with peoples' wishes (which is worse for oligarchs, as Russia is more tolerant of corruption by its allies than are Western lenders) tells us it was not simply an oligarch coup. But the oligarchs were certainly deeply involved as well and have struggled amongst themselves on their own level. This was especially true in places such as Kolomoysky's Dnipropetrovsk, or Kharkiv, where the local elite decided not to throw its support behind Yanukovich to make a stand, after he fled there.

    However, Ukraine's West does not have real oligarch clans and the mass revolutionary fervor there cannot be attributed to that. To a lesser degree this is also true of Kiev city, where in addition to regular people the "wealthy" contributors were small to medium-sized business owners and storeowners and their employees who were sick of Donbas thugs shaking them up for money under Yanukovich (a revolt of the millionaires against the billionaires). It was these regions that really drove the uprising.

    If you are familiar with Ukrainian history, this has the flavor of the Ukrainian uprising against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which pitted certain magnate families (oligarchs) who were trying to consolidate their power against peasants and, importantly, poorer nobles such as Bohdan Khmelnytsky whose powers were being overtaken by the magnates. The latter groups, with the help of Tatars and later Russians, managed to drive out the magnates only to have the country descend into chaos. Fortunately modern events are much more humane even if they follow familiar patterns.

    One can argue about the relative weight in importance between various Ukrainian business clans and "the people" with respect to the uprising that toppled the government, but the idea that this was a foreign coup by the West is absolute stupidity.
  181. Alden says:
    @Seamus Padraig

    Because nobody ever gets shot in the back ...
     
    Where I come from, muggers do typically approach people from the front.

    I wonder what part those victims played in the DNC conspiracy?
     
    I don't know. What did they leak to Julian Assange? ;-)

    It’s almost always a team of 3. One is in front, one in the back and one driving the car.
    If it’s two, they drive around looking for pedestrians. When they spot a victim, one gets out about a block behind an commits the mugging while the other stays in the car ready to take off the second the mugger rubs back with the loot.
    The reason the mugger gets off a block behind the victim is so the victim won’t hear the car.

    Read More
  182. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Alden
    Actually, yes, even middle school children are taught that Wikepedia is full of falsehoods. It's common knowledge that Wikepedia is not to be trusted about anything Only the ignorant and naive trust the information in Wikepedia. Since you trust the information in Wikepedia you must be ignorant and naive.

    Get yourself to a university library or the library of congress if you want to learn the truth about anything

    The Information about the 1932 elections in Germany is not only reported on Wikipedia. You’re profoundly ignorant.

    Read More
  183. AP says:
    @Cyrano
    GDP per capita in US is now what? 50K? That means that actually every American gets 50K a year to live on? After the top 2-300 billioners take let’s say half of that and let’s say actually for better accuracy the top 1% takes maybe 70-80% of the GDP, the average American is left with about 20% out of those 50k – which is about 10k. Your statistics are meaningless and they prove that you have no intelligence or imagination. It's just a rough estimate and I am probably way off - there is no way average American gets 10k a year, but I didn’t look this up anywhere on the Internet – I don’t have to, it’s called common sense. You, on the other hand, might have to consult the dictionary. And yes "my" country Russia (you see the "" marks mean that I am not Russian) got uglier while your country is currently undergoing a beautification program and is getting better and better.

    GDP per capita in US is now what? 50K? That means that actually every American gets 50K a year to live on?

    Median household income in the USA in 2013 was $51,000.

    Shall I consult a dictionary in order to teach you what the word “median” means?

    It means that half of US households earned more than $51k per year, and half less.

    Median individual income is $32,000. It varies by education level.

    After the top 2-300 billioners take let’s say half of that and let’s say actually for better accuracy the top 1% takes maybe 70-80% of the GDP, the average American is left with about 20% out of those 50k – which is about 10k.

    Its very cute when Sharikov tries to do math and comes up with his conclusions about how much the average American really makes.

    Meanwhile, so many sacrifices just to fall behind Portugal and Greece.

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Here is your problem, AP: you pretend to be a westerner, but your inability for a measured and respectful argument reveals the "ears" of either a Soviet or a banderite upbringing (or both). You have managed to insult your opponents on this forum not only by using derogatory words but also by abusing their intelligence.
    , @Cyrano
    Sure, Russia fell behind Portugal and Greece but that's why you are surging ahead to match the third world in wages. Under the guise of globalism, the only thing you'll manage to globalize is the standard of living and I am afraid is not going to mean improvement for you. As for Russia, forget about your nonsense about median income, compare where was Russia in 1991 and now and what happened in the same time frame in US. Who is better of now than in 1991? Pretty soon they'll take away your social security, you never had health care like the rest of the civilized world to begin with, and the only thing you'll have to show as a measure of success is how many third world immigrants find US appealing - since no one else does.
  184. […] What needs explaining is not why Donald Trump and his staff tell lies.   Many recent leaders have lied. […]

    Read More
  185. annamaria says:
    @AP

    GDP per capita in US is now what? 50K? That means that actually every American gets 50K a year to live on?
     
    Median household income in the USA in 2013 was $51,000.

    Shall I consult a dictionary in order to teach you what the word "median" means?

    It means that half of US households earned more than $51k per year, and half less.

    Median individual income is $32,000. It varies by education level.

    After the top 2-300 billioners take let’s say half of that and let’s say actually for better accuracy the top 1% takes maybe 70-80% of the GDP, the average American is left with about 20% out of those 50k – which is about 10k.
     
    Its very cute when Sharikov tries to do math and comes up with his conclusions about how much the average American really makes.

    Meanwhile, so many sacrifices just to fall behind Portugal and Greece.

    Here is your problem, AP: you pretend to be a westerner, but your inability for a measured and respectful argument reveals the “ears” of either a Soviet or a banderite upbringing (or both). You have managed to insult your opponents on this forum not only by using derogatory words but also by abusing their intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Here is your problem, AP: you pretend to be a westerner, but your inability for a measured and respectful argument reveals the “ears” of either a Soviet or a banderite upbringing (or both).
     
    Neither, but your claim is in keeping with your overall poor level of perceptiveness.

    I tend to mirror whomever I interact with when it comes to respectfulness.

    You still haven't answered the question I asked you.
  186. Cyrano says:
    @AP

    GDP per capita in US is now what? 50K? That means that actually every American gets 50K a year to live on?
     
    Median household income in the USA in 2013 was $51,000.

    Shall I consult a dictionary in order to teach you what the word "median" means?

    It means that half of US households earned more than $51k per year, and half less.

    Median individual income is $32,000. It varies by education level.

    After the top 2-300 billioners take let’s say half of that and let’s say actually for better accuracy the top 1% takes maybe 70-80% of the GDP, the average American is left with about 20% out of those 50k – which is about 10k.
     
    Its very cute when Sharikov tries to do math and comes up with his conclusions about how much the average American really makes.

    Meanwhile, so many sacrifices just to fall behind Portugal and Greece.

    Sure, Russia fell behind Portugal and Greece but that’s why you are surging ahead to match the third world in wages. Under the guise of globalism, the only thing you’ll manage to globalize is the standard of living and I am afraid is not going to mean improvement for you. As for Russia, forget about your nonsense about median income, compare where was Russia in 1991 and now and what happened in the same time frame in US. Who is better of now than in 1991? Pretty soon they’ll take away your social security, you never had health care like the rest of the civilized world to begin with, and the only thing you’ll have to show as a measure of success is how many third world immigrants find US appealing – since no one else does.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    Sure, Russia fell behind Portugal and Greece but that’s why you are surging ahead to match the third world in wages
     
    Wages in the US are at worst stagnant (that is, stable at nearly the highest in the world), and are not "surging" anywhere.

    As for Russia, forget about your nonsense about median
     
    Is math too hard for you, Sharikov?

    As for Russia, forget about your nonsense about median income, compare where was Russia in 1991 and now and what happened in the same time frame in US. Who is better of now than in 1991?
     
    Now you are changing the subject. A people as intelligent as the Russians should be expected to improve dramatically after they left the Communist nightmare behind, because the artificial constraints holding them back were removed. And they did. Not as well as did some others, of course, but improvement has been substantial.

    You comically claimed that "The French and the Russian revolution actually established the standards by which any other revolution should be measured in terms of accomplishments."

    That "accomplishment", in addition to costing Russia territory and tens of millions of lost population, not to mention incredible ugliness in culture and production of the grotesque creature homo sovieticus, also resulted in a relative drop in income compared to similarly wealthy countries.

    Pretty soon they’ll take away your social security, you never had health care like the rest of the civilized world to begin with,
     
    For people who have jobs and thus insurance, America offers the best healthcare in the world. Certainly better than in Russia, where people who can afford it go to Germany, Israel, or the USA for treatment.

    But then, you have muddled yourself into "thinking" that the average American makes 10k a year, Sharikov.

    Bad American health-care stats are all dependent upon the mixing of disparate population groups to come up with negative averages that are meaningless. It's the same phenomenon with statistics involving homicide, or educational achievement.
  187. AP says:
    @Miro23
    For what it is worth, I've had regular dealings with a some of the upper echelons of Ukrainians since the Revolution and would summarize their opinions as follows:

    A feeling of hopelessness about the endemic corruption. Participation is a matter of survival but they don't see any change and generally want to exit the country with their families.

    There's a (Western) Ukrainian identity something like the identity of Scotland with regard to England. They are reluctant to admit it, but in Eastern Ukraine and Crimea the population are pro-Russian (many ethnic Russians) and supporting of Putin's intervention. The Ukrainians living in Donetsk etc. aren't so political any more. They just want to be left alone and get their pensions.

    The US isn't perceived as having much of a role in anything. The Revolution had mass local support, with the feeling that it has been hijacked, and a new general disillusionment with always corrupt leadership. The real wish seems to be to get closer to Europe, as represented by Poland - where events are followed quite closely, and which has a generally friendly and positive attitude towards them. Neocon participation is hardly commented on and seems to be part of the US/Isreal/Syria story aimed at provoking Russia.

    Russia is troubled by the loss of Ukraine as England would be by the loss of Scotland but there doesn't seem to be any deep enmity between Russian and Ukrainian people.

    That’s quite accurate but too reality-based for some of the commenters here.

    Read More
  188. AP says:
    @annamaria
    Here is your problem, AP: you pretend to be a westerner, but your inability for a measured and respectful argument reveals the "ears" of either a Soviet or a banderite upbringing (or both). You have managed to insult your opponents on this forum not only by using derogatory words but also by abusing their intelligence.

    Here is your problem, AP: you pretend to be a westerner, but your inability for a measured and respectful argument reveals the “ears” of either a Soviet or a banderite upbringing (or both).

    Neither, but your claim is in keeping with your overall poor level of perceptiveness.

    I tend to mirror whomever I interact with when it comes to respectfulness.

    You still haven’t answered the question I asked you.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    May I answer it for her. It’s all a Zionist conspiracy. It always works. Any event in history with unfavorable outcome for US can be explained as Zionist conspiracy. France provided more support for US war of independence than in Ukraine’s case and yet nobody calls it a coup – Zionist conspiracy. Russia took back its territory from Ukraine – Zionist conspiracy.

    The US wanted to help Ukraine and they already put 87 tanks on the Russian border few weeks ago and if Russia tries to make another move – they’ll put even more thanks on their border. And if that doesn’t teach them any lesson, I hear Montenegro is about to become NATO member and with their help NATO will at last have the numbers that they need to deal with Russia, because 28 members is just not enough, but with Montenegro’s help, the balance might finally tip in favor of US.
    , @annamaria
    There are several respondents to your Q and we all found your comparison (and the question itself) ridiculous. But as a spoiled child, you do not want to take "no" for an answer.
    The same childish logic that you have been using for comparing a mole-hill of the banal regime change operation in Ukraine (it was a coup d'etat run according to a well-rehearsed scrip by the CIA and State Dept.) with the epochal event in North America in the 18th century - you use the same logic in accusing a responder in your poor manners. Grow up, AP.
  189. AP says:
    @Cyrano
    Sure, Russia fell behind Portugal and Greece but that's why you are surging ahead to match the third world in wages. Under the guise of globalism, the only thing you'll manage to globalize is the standard of living and I am afraid is not going to mean improvement for you. As for Russia, forget about your nonsense about median income, compare where was Russia in 1991 and now and what happened in the same time frame in US. Who is better of now than in 1991? Pretty soon they'll take away your social security, you never had health care like the rest of the civilized world to begin with, and the only thing you'll have to show as a measure of success is how many third world immigrants find US appealing - since no one else does.

    Sure, Russia fell behind Portugal and Greece but that’s why you are surging ahead to match the third world in wages

    Wages in the US are at worst stagnant (that is, stable at nearly the highest in the world), and are not “surging” anywhere.

    As for Russia, forget about your nonsense about median

    Is math too hard for you, Sharikov?

    As for Russia, forget about your nonsense about median income, compare where was Russia in 1991 and now and what happened in the same time frame in US. Who is better of now than in 1991?

    Now you are changing the subject. A people as intelligent as the Russians should be expected to improve dramatically after they left the Communist nightmare behind, because the artificial constraints holding them back were removed. And they did. Not as well as did some others, of course, but improvement has been substantial.

    You comically claimed that “The French and the Russian revolution actually established the standards by which any other revolution should be measured in terms of accomplishments.”

    That “accomplishment”, in addition to costing Russia territory and tens of millions of lost population, not to mention incredible ugliness in culture and production of the grotesque creature homo sovieticus, also resulted in a relative drop in income compared to similarly wealthy countries.

    Pretty soon they’ll take away your social security, you never had health care like the rest of the civilized world to begin with,

    For people who have jobs and thus insurance, America offers the best healthcare in the world. Certainly better than in Russia, where people who can afford it go to Germany, Israel, or the USA for treatment.

    But then, you have muddled yourself into “thinking” that the average American makes 10k a year, Sharikov.

    Bad American health-care stats are all dependent upon the mixing of disparate population groups to come up with negative averages that are meaningless. It’s the same phenomenon with statistics involving homicide, or educational achievement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    That's right. US has a best health care in the world, the best army in the world, the safest cities, and the best public education. When you state all that, you don't need any support from facts, it's all self evident. Not to mention country with most freedom, but I guess G.W. Bush was right - there are people who hate your freedoms, that's why 2.5 million people voluntarily checked themselves into prisons in US - because they hate your freedoms.
  190. AP says:
    @hobo
    If the Maidan revolution was “staged” by Victoria Nuland, then this must have involved considerable actions by her or the West.

    Missing from this dialogue is the crucial role of the oligarchs in staging the revolution. Nuland’s role can probably be best characterized as an enabler and facilitator. The street level uprising concealed what was probably the determinant factor behind the revolution - the infighting between various oligarchic factions for control and continued looting of the Ukrainian economy. One method of Yanukovich and his ‘family’s’ expansion was to target the assets of other oligarchs. These oligarchs controlled the media and therefore had the capacity to frame the narrative, aligning (and probably instigating) the uprising with their objective - the premature removal of Yanukovich from power. It was purely a case of self-preservation.

    Below are excerpts from an article written in Feb. 2013, a full year before the Maidan revolution. It may provide a perspective that differs somewhat from the popular narrative.


    As its business empire expands, Yanukovych clan targets top oligarchs
    THE UKRAINIAN WEEKLY SUNDAY, FEBRUARY 10, 2013
    http://www.ukrweekly.com/calendar/TOC/13/06.htm

    The ever-expanding business empire of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych is now preying on top oligarchs, forcing them to sell their business assets to family interests and cease their political activity.

    snip

    … an elaborate attempt by its billionaire owner, Igor Kolomoisky, to evade being swallowed up by the Yanukovych business clan, which is voraciously pursuing valuable properties to enhance its influence and control of the country

    snip

    Compared to someone like Mr. Firtash, who controls 15 to 20 percent of the entire Ukrainian economy, Mr. Kolomoisky is an easier target for the family, controlling between 5 and 10 percent “which is enough to widen its resource base,” said Mr.Romanenko

    snip

    >-“With this group coming to power, they’ve begun to force out others and now we have open financial-corporate wars in very rough forms,” said Dr. Oleh Soskin, chair of the Institute of Society Transformation in Kyiv. “Yanukovych, his sons and his closest circle are devouring and taking over all the smaller players around them on Ukraine’s political and economic map.” Western observers, such as Dr. Anders Aslund of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington and Dr. Alexander Motyl of Rutgers University in Newark, were predicting the current scenario as early as the autumn of 2012. They also predicted the oligarchs would retaliate politically, which hasn’t happened yet

    snip

    “These elections will be either the final step in Yanukovych’s consolidation of power or his opponents’ last chance to disrupt his family rule,” Dr. Aslund wrote in late October. “This time, however, the most palpable threat to his rule comes not from the crowds on the street but the elite business-men he has alienated.”

    This is perhaps the most informed of the comments here.

    If the Maidan revolution was “staged” by Victoria Nuland, then this must have involved considerable actions by her or the West.

    Yes, and her and the West’s actions were not that considerable. They provided diplomatic support and cover, and had provided funds to some of the NGOs. That’s about it. As you correctly wrote, ” Nuland’s role can probably be best characterized as an enabler and facilitator.” The real action was local. It was a native uprising.

    The street level uprising concealed what was probably the determinant factor behind the revolution – the infighting between various oligarchic factions for control and continued looting of the Ukrainian economy. One method of Yanukovich and his ‘family’s’ expansion was to target the assets of other oligarchs. These oligarchs controlled the media and therefore had the capacity to frame the narrative, aligning (and probably instigating) the uprising with their objective – the premature removal of Yanukovich from power. It was purely a case of self-preservation.

    This was certainly a very important part of it. Not only the regular Ukrainian people, but certainly other oligarchs did not want to see Yanukovich consolidate his power and become some sort of Central-Asian style despot. That many of the initial figures in government were idealistic reformers, that the tone had a nationalistic/populistic one, and that the country shifted its course Westward in accordance with peoples’ wishes (which is worse for oligarchs, as Russia is more tolerant of corruption by its allies than are Western lenders) tells us it was not simply an oligarch coup. But the oligarchs were certainly deeply involved as well and have struggled amongst themselves on their own level. This was especially true in places such as Kolomoysky’s Dnipropetrovsk, or Kharkiv, where the local elite decided not to throw its support behind Yanukovich to make a stand, after he fled there.

    However, Ukraine’s West does not have real oligarch clans and the mass revolutionary fervor there cannot be attributed to that. To a lesser degree this is also true of Kiev city, where in addition to regular people the “wealthy” contributors were small to medium-sized business owners and storeowners and their employees who were sick of Donbas thugs shaking them up for money under Yanukovich (a revolt of the millionaires against the billionaires). It was these regions that really drove the uprising.

    If you are familiar with Ukrainian history, this has the flavor of the Ukrainian uprising against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which pitted certain magnate families (oligarchs) who were trying to consolidate their power against peasants and, importantly, poorer nobles such as Bohdan Khmelnytsky whose powers were being overtaken by the magnates. The latter groups, with the help of Tatars and later Russians, managed to drive out the magnates only to have the country descend into chaos. Fortunately modern events are much more humane even if they follow familiar patterns.

    One can argue about the relative weight in importance between various Ukrainian business clans and “the people” with respect to the uprising that toppled the government, but the idea that this was a foreign coup by the West is absolute stupidity.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    You make some reasonable points, AP.

    Since you are so sure it was not a " coup" perhaps you should take the time to read two articles which discuss this exact issue, written by Robert Parry for Consortium News.

    They are archived and can be easily found by typing "Ukraine" in the search bar at the website "Consortium News"

    The first was written on Sept 2, 2014 "Who's telling the Big Lie on Ukraine"

    The second was written on June 22, 2015 "NYT's Orwellian view of Ukraine"

    I am curious to know what you think.
  191. Cyrano says:
    @AP

    Here is your problem, AP: you pretend to be a westerner, but your inability for a measured and respectful argument reveals the “ears” of either a Soviet or a banderite upbringing (or both).
     
    Neither, but your claim is in keeping with your overall poor level of perceptiveness.

    I tend to mirror whomever I interact with when it comes to respectfulness.

    You still haven't answered the question I asked you.

    May I answer it for her. It’s all a Zionist conspiracy. It always works. Any event in history with unfavorable outcome for US can be explained as Zionist conspiracy. France provided more support for US war of independence than in Ukraine’s case and yet nobody calls it a coup – Zionist conspiracy. Russia took back its territory from Ukraine – Zionist conspiracy.

    The US wanted to help Ukraine and they already put 87 tanks on the Russian border few weeks ago and if Russia tries to make another move – they’ll put even more thanks on their border. And if that doesn’t teach them any lesson, I hear Montenegro is about to become NATO member and with their help NATO will at last have the numbers that they need to deal with Russia, because 28 members is just not enough, but with Montenegro’s help, the balance might finally tip in favor of US.

    Read More
  192. Cyrano says:
    @AP

    Sure, Russia fell behind Portugal and Greece but that’s why you are surging ahead to match the third world in wages
     
    Wages in the US are at worst stagnant (that is, stable at nearly the highest in the world), and are not "surging" anywhere.

    As for Russia, forget about your nonsense about median
     
    Is math too hard for you, Sharikov?

    As for Russia, forget about your nonsense about median income, compare where was Russia in 1991 and now and what happened in the same time frame in US. Who is better of now than in 1991?
     
    Now you are changing the subject. A people as intelligent as the Russians should be expected to improve dramatically after they left the Communist nightmare behind, because the artificial constraints holding them back were removed. And they did. Not as well as did some others, of course, but improvement has been substantial.

    You comically claimed that "The French and the Russian revolution actually established the standards by which any other revolution should be measured in terms of accomplishments."

    That "accomplishment", in addition to costing Russia territory and tens of millions of lost population, not to mention incredible ugliness in culture and production of the grotesque creature homo sovieticus, also resulted in a relative drop in income compared to similarly wealthy countries.

    Pretty soon they’ll take away your social security, you never had health care like the rest of the civilized world to begin with,
     
    For people who have jobs and thus insurance, America offers the best healthcare in the world. Certainly better than in Russia, where people who can afford it go to Germany, Israel, or the USA for treatment.

    But then, you have muddled yourself into "thinking" that the average American makes 10k a year, Sharikov.

    Bad American health-care stats are all dependent upon the mixing of disparate population groups to come up with negative averages that are meaningless. It's the same phenomenon with statistics involving homicide, or educational achievement.

    That’s right. US has a best health care in the world, the best army in the world, the safest cities, and the best public education. When you state all that, you don’t need any support from facts, it’s all self evident. Not to mention country with most freedom, but I guess G.W. Bush was right – there are people who hate your freedoms, that’s why 2.5 million people voluntarily checked themselves into prisons in US – because they hate your freedoms.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    Read more carefully before responding.

    US has a best health care in the world
     
    For employed people who have good insurance (most of the population, though far from all), yes.

    best army in the world
     
    Tough to say, because it has only been used against pathetic opponents recently. Which is a good thing, of course.

    the best public education
     
    Top 5. Steve Sailer looked at PISA results by race. American whites, tied with Switzerland, did better than most Europeans, its Latinos did better than all Latino countries, and its Asians outperformed all Asian countries other than the city-state of Singapore.

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/12/overall-pisa-rankings-include-america.html

    Bad stats in America are mostly due to mixing different population groups to produce fake "averages" that are meaningless in the real world.
  193. AP says:
    @Cyrano
    That's right. US has a best health care in the world, the best army in the world, the safest cities, and the best public education. When you state all that, you don't need any support from facts, it's all self evident. Not to mention country with most freedom, but I guess G.W. Bush was right - there are people who hate your freedoms, that's why 2.5 million people voluntarily checked themselves into prisons in US - because they hate your freedoms.

    Read more carefully before responding.

    US has a best health care in the world

    For employed people who have good insurance (most of the population, though far from all), yes.

    best army in the world

    Tough to say, because it has only been used against pathetic opponents recently. Which is a good thing, of course.

    the best public education

    Top 5. Steve Sailer looked at PISA results by race. American whites, tied with Switzerland, did better than most Europeans, its Latinos did better than all Latino countries, and its Asians outperformed all Asian countries other than the city-state of Singapore.

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/12/overall-pisa-rankings-include-america.html

    Bad stats in America are mostly due to mixing different population groups to produce fake “averages” that are meaningless in the real world.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano

    Bad stats in America are mostly due to mixing different population groups to produce fake “averages” that are meaningless in the real world.
     
    What kind of logic is that? Those "different" population groups all live in America - don't they, why should they be irrelevant when composing accurate statistical data? Wouldn't that skew the statistics towards unrealistic findings? So if we exclude all the poor, homeless, imprisoned, uneducated and people without health care, US is actually a great place to live? Never thought about it that way. It all starts to make sense now. Thanks.
  194. annamaria says:
    @AP

    Here is your problem, AP: you pretend to be a westerner, but your inability for a measured and respectful argument reveals the “ears” of either a Soviet or a banderite upbringing (or both).
     
    Neither, but your claim is in keeping with your overall poor level of perceptiveness.

    I tend to mirror whomever I interact with when it comes to respectfulness.

    You still haven't answered the question I asked you.

    There are several respondents to your Q and we all found your comparison (and the question itself) ridiculous. But as a spoiled child, you do not want to take “no” for an answer.
    The same childish logic that you have been using for comparing a mole-hill of the banal regime change operation in Ukraine (it was a coup d’etat run according to a well-rehearsed scrip by the CIA and State Dept.) with the epochal event in North America in the 18th century – you use the same logic in accusing a responder in your poor manners. Grow up, AP.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    There are several respondents to your Q and we all found your comparison (and the question itself) ridiculous
     
    I am aware that people such as you frequent the same site. Appealing to the "wisdom" of a few other ignorant and/or dishonest people is not the same as actually answering the question I asked of you and that you continue to be afraid to answer:

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    it was a coup d’etat run according to a well-rehearsed scrip by the CIA and State Dept
     
    Repeating the lie, that you have failed to defend, often enough does not make it true.

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.
  195. alexander says:
    @AP
    This is perhaps the most informed of the comments here.

    If the Maidan revolution was “staged” by Victoria Nuland, then this must have involved considerable actions by her or the West.
     
    Yes, and her and the West's actions were not that considerable. They provided diplomatic support and cover, and had provided funds to some of the NGOs. That's about it. As you correctly wrote, " Nuland’s role can probably be best characterized as an enabler and facilitator." The real action was local. It was a native uprising.

    The street level uprising concealed what was probably the determinant factor behind the revolution – the infighting between various oligarchic factions for control and continued looting of the Ukrainian economy. One method of Yanukovich and his ‘family’s’ expansion was to target the assets of other oligarchs. These oligarchs controlled the media and therefore had the capacity to frame the narrative, aligning (and probably instigating) the uprising with their objective – the premature removal of Yanukovich from power. It was purely a case of self-preservation.
     
    This was certainly a very important part of it. Not only the regular Ukrainian people, but certainly other oligarchs did not want to see Yanukovich consolidate his power and become some sort of Central-Asian style despot. That many of the initial figures in government were idealistic reformers, that the tone had a nationalistic/populistic one, and that the country shifted its course Westward in accordance with peoples' wishes (which is worse for oligarchs, as Russia is more tolerant of corruption by its allies than are Western lenders) tells us it was not simply an oligarch coup. But the oligarchs were certainly deeply involved as well and have struggled amongst themselves on their own level. This was especially true in places such as Kolomoysky's Dnipropetrovsk, or Kharkiv, where the local elite decided not to throw its support behind Yanukovich to make a stand, after he fled there.

    However, Ukraine's West does not have real oligarch clans and the mass revolutionary fervor there cannot be attributed to that. To a lesser degree this is also true of Kiev city, where in addition to regular people the "wealthy" contributors were small to medium-sized business owners and storeowners and their employees who were sick of Donbas thugs shaking them up for money under Yanukovich (a revolt of the millionaires against the billionaires). It was these regions that really drove the uprising.

    If you are familiar with Ukrainian history, this has the flavor of the Ukrainian uprising against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, which pitted certain magnate families (oligarchs) who were trying to consolidate their power against peasants and, importantly, poorer nobles such as Bohdan Khmelnytsky whose powers were being overtaken by the magnates. The latter groups, with the help of Tatars and later Russians, managed to drive out the magnates only to have the country descend into chaos. Fortunately modern events are much more humane even if they follow familiar patterns.

    One can argue about the relative weight in importance between various Ukrainian business clans and "the people" with respect to the uprising that toppled the government, but the idea that this was a foreign coup by the West is absolute stupidity.

    You make some reasonable points, AP.

    Since you are so sure it was not a ” coup” perhaps you should take the time to read two articles which discuss this exact issue, written by Robert Parry for Consortium News.

    They are archived and can be easily found by typing “Ukraine” in the search bar at the website “Consortium News”

    The first was written on Sept 2, 2014 “Who’s telling the Big Lie on Ukraine”

    The second was written on June 22, 2015 “NYT’s Orwellian view of Ukraine”

    I am curious to know what you think.

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    There are also several more articles in Consortium News, which may lend some facts and some clarity to the discussion.


    Nov. 2, 2016. " Phony "Corruption" Excuse for Ukraine Coup."

    Feb. 26, 2014 " Cheering a "Democratic" coup in Ukraine."

    July 13, 2015 " The Mess that Nuland Made "
    , @AP
    Neither one of the articles offer much "proof" that this was a "coup", other than repeating someone else who said so and repeating Nuland's tape, which just means she was arranging meetings and expressing her preference.

    That fact that Parry keeps repeating that Yanukovich was the elected president and keeps omitting that Yanukovich, after winning the presidency, did a lot of nondemocratic things indicates that he is playing a game of lying by omission and is a poor source of objective information.

    He does point out, accurately, that the Western mainstream media has been underplaying the role that neo-Nazis have been playing in Ukraine. But then, take what he writes with a big grain of salt, given that he is clearly not objective himself and indeed he overemphasizes their influence and mixes non-Nazi far-rightists with neo-Nazis. But that's another topic.

    If you're interested, here is a comprehensive and detailed article about the far right in Ukraine:

    http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com/2015/01/whither-ukrainian-far-right.html

    The author is not perfect, but he is a lot more knowledgeable and objective than the source you linked to.

  196. AP says:
    @annamaria
    There are several respondents to your Q and we all found your comparison (and the question itself) ridiculous. But as a spoiled child, you do not want to take "no" for an answer.
    The same childish logic that you have been using for comparing a mole-hill of the banal regime change operation in Ukraine (it was a coup d'etat run according to a well-rehearsed scrip by the CIA and State Dept.) with the epochal event in North America in the 18th century - you use the same logic in accusing a responder in your poor manners. Grow up, AP.

    There are several respondents to your Q and we all found your comparison (and the question itself) ridiculous

    I am aware that people such as you frequent the same site. Appealing to the “wisdom” of a few other ignorant and/or dishonest people is not the same as actually answering the question I asked of you and that you continue to be afraid to answer:

    Was the American Revolution actually a French coup, in your world? Because the French were far more active in the American Revolution, than the West was in Ukraine.*

    it was a coup d’etat run according to a well-rehearsed scrip by the CIA and State Dept

    Repeating the lie, that you have failed to defend, often enough does not make it true.

    * To repeat, French supplied thousands of troops on the ground and a French General, provided a naval blockade that was critical for the final winning battle at Yorktown, spent 13 billion dollars in today’s money, and hosted the final treaty in Paris that resulted in America’s independence.

    Read More
  197. Cyrano says:
    @AP
    Read more carefully before responding.

    US has a best health care in the world
     
    For employed people who have good insurance (most of the population, though far from all), yes.

    best army in the world
     
    Tough to say, because it has only been used against pathetic opponents recently. Which is a good thing, of course.

    the best public education
     
    Top 5. Steve Sailer looked at PISA results by race. American whites, tied with Switzerland, did better than most Europeans, its Latinos did better than all Latino countries, and its Asians outperformed all Asian countries other than the city-state of Singapore.

    http://isteve.blogspot.com/2013/12/overall-pisa-rankings-include-america.html

    Bad stats in America are mostly due to mixing different population groups to produce fake "averages" that are meaningless in the real world.

    Bad stats in America are mostly due to mixing different population groups to produce fake “averages” that are meaningless in the real world.

    What kind of logic is that? Those “different” population groups all live in America – don’t they, why should they be irrelevant when composing accurate statistical data? Wouldn’t that skew the statistics towards unrealistic findings? So if we exclude all the poor, homeless, imprisoned, uneducated and people without health care, US is actually a great place to live? Never thought about it that way. It all starts to make sense now. Thanks.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP
    If I have a medication that is 100% effective for males but 0% effective for females, do I report that the medication is only 50%?

    If there are two groups with different results the groups are included differently.

    Based on PISA results, Americans of European background perform better than almost all Europeans. They are tied with the Swiss. So American schools are great for Americans of European backgrounds. Almost the best in the world.

    American Latinos perform better than all Latin Americans. So American schools are great for Latinos.

    American Asians outperform all Asian countries other than Singapore. So American schools are about the best in the world for Asian kids.

    There isn't data on PISA for Africa - I strongly suspect African Americans outperform all Africans.

    With very few exception, each of the world's peoples of all backgrounds who end up in America, a diverse nation, do better in American schools than they their brothers do in their native countries. But because America is much more diverse than, for example, European or Asian countries, and accepts and educates people from lower performing countries, the national average in America is a little lower than that of many European and Asian countries.

    Those are the realistic findings - not ones that erroneously pretend that all groups are the same.

    But thanks for confirming, with your silly arguments, your cluelessness, which we now see is not limited to Ukraine, communism, etc. but is a global trait.
  198. alexander says:
    @alexander
    You make some reasonable points, AP.

    Since you are so sure it was not a " coup" perhaps you should take the time to read two articles which discuss this exact issue, written by Robert Parry for Consortium News.

    They are archived and can be easily found by typing "Ukraine" in the search bar at the website "Consortium News"

    The first was written on Sept 2, 2014 "Who's telling the Big Lie on Ukraine"

    The second was written on June 22, 2015 "NYT's Orwellian view of Ukraine"

    I am curious to know what you think.

    There are also several more articles in Consortium News, which may lend some facts and some clarity to the discussion.

    Nov. 2, 2016. ” Phony “Corruption” Excuse for Ukraine Coup.”

    Feb. 26, 2014 ” Cheering a “Democratic” coup in Ukraine.”

    July 13, 2015 ” The Mess that Nuland Made “

    Read More
  199. AP says:
    @Cyrano

    Bad stats in America are mostly due to mixing different population groups to produce fake “averages” that are meaningless in the real world.
     
    What kind of logic is that? Those "different" population groups all live in America - don't they, why should they be irrelevant when composing accurate statistical data? Wouldn't that skew the statistics towards unrealistic findings? So if we exclude all the poor, homeless, imprisoned, uneducated and people without health care, US is actually a great place to live? Never thought about it that way. It all starts to make sense now. Thanks.

    If I have a medication that is 100% effective for males but 0% effective for females, do I report that the medication is only 50%?

    If there are two groups with different results the groups are included differently.

    Based on PISA results, Americans of European background perform better than almost all Europeans. They are tied with the Swiss. So American schools are great for Americans of European backgrounds. Almost the best in the world.

    American Latinos perform better than all Latin Americans. So American schools are great for Latinos.

    American Asians outperform all Asian countries other than Singapore. So American schools are about the best in the world for Asian kids.

    There isn’t data on PISA for Africa – I strongly suspect African Americans outperform all Africans.

    With very few exception, each of the world’s peoples of all backgrounds who end up in America, a diverse nation, do better in American schools than they their brothers do in their native countries. But because America is much more diverse than, for example, European or Asian countries, and accepts and educates people from lower performing countries, the national average in America is a little lower than that of many European and Asian countries.

    Those are the realistic findings – not ones that erroneously pretend that all groups are the same.

    But thanks for confirming, with your silly arguments, your cluelessness, which we now see is not limited to Ukraine, communism, etc. but is a global trait.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano
    I think I have a better comparison, If one person is punching you in the head, while another one is giving you a foot massage - does that mean that overall you are doing OK? But enough of that, let's stick to the original question which nobody seems to know: Was the War of independence a French coup or not? Can anybody answer that? And can it all be explained through the Jewish conspiracy theory? I am sure it can, but I need you to tell me the details. Was is it a coup? Then we'll move over to Ukraine and clear that one too.
  200. Mario64 says:
    @SolontoCroesus
    On closer reading, Mario64, it appears you've not given much thought to the quotes in your cut-and-paste assemblage.

    Pilger seems like he would be a sound source, he's published on Unz, after all, and he's reliably lefty (I guess; I really have little clue what those terms mean anymore).
    But look at the content and context of the Pilger quote, and apply it to the actual film he's discussing: I see a mismatch, perhaps the result of Hitler Derangement Syndrome,© or ascribable to the fact that Pilger is British and inclined to defend the Muthah country, right or wrong.

    IMDb -- not exactly a skinhead operation -- said this in a synopsis of the 13 segments of "Triumph of the Will"


    "Hitler gives a speech closing the proceedings. This speech, just like all the others documented, have no programs or explanations but are designed to
    create enthusiasm for a new Germany,
    united,
    that can do extraordinary things,
    that can solve problems and
    build for a better future,
    where the ordinary worker is treated with dignity, and
    all are motivated by patriotic love for the German nation. "
     
    To be sure, elsewhere on IMDb "Triumph" is described as "sinister" and "chilling;" "propaganda . . .demonstrating "how the Nazi state drew in the masses through propaganda and also how Adolf Hitler had a unique and terrifying ability to entice crowds to his beliefs by the very power of his words."

    All of this, these contrapuntal viewpoints, are described by Riefenstahl as emerging from an effort that was NOT dictated by Hitler (contrary to the claims of those who credited Hitler's rhetoric), but were imbibed as a result of "the submissive void of the German public."

    In other words, the German people in Nuremberg in 1934 took themselves to their homes at day's end, sang patriotic songs; rose at dawn to quiet streets; attended apparently non-violent rallies in newly-built, very large stadiums; raised young men who camped in tents and went about their work with smiling faces; mothers gave flowers to Hitler as their held their children -- all spontaneous emanations of the "submissive void of the German people."

    Where there had been rampant prostitution, poverty and mob violence during the Weimar years, now, according to Riefenstahl in 1934, there arose from the "submissive void of the German people" orderliness, hopefulness, community cohesion, industriousness and a sense of gratitude.

    Sinister indeed.

    In contrast, as Dr. Michael Jones has detailed in numerous speeches and writing, there exists a "revolutionary spirit" that uses sexual degradation to undermine the moral character of a people, with the goal of more easily exercising control and dominance over that people.
    In this system it must be observed that the compromising force comes from without rather than from within the "submissive void" of the target people.
    Once compromised in this way, the intrusive, demoralizing force imposes its agenda, which usually includes seduction of the populace to consumerism and attendant capitalist (usurious) borrowing to pay for previously unneeded "wants." In "Capturing the German Eye," Cora Sol Goldstein describes just such a "democracy-enforcing" regimen, which Goldstein concedes was carried out through "brutal and undemocratic means."

    No such program is apparent in Riefenstahl's "Triumph."

    The debauching program described by Jones occasionally is enforced with violent means. Just such a program -- termed by its managers "psychological warfare" -- was carried out against the German people for three- to five years after Germany surrendered. During that period, Allied forces maintained a "monopoly on violence;" -- Germans lived under constant existential threat.
    In contrast to the scenarios in "Triumph," German people were deprived of the most basic shelter, and permitted amounts of food insufficient to sustain even an inactive adult. To make up the deficit, women, men and children once again were forced to prostitute themselves. Thus, under control of US forces, the German people found themselves back in the same degraded state as they had successfully dug themselves out of under National Socialism.

    In short, it appears the "submissive void" of the German people had a lot more going for it; and was far more peaceful, civilized and productive, than the violently enforced imposition of "democracy, capitalism, and consumerism" that first, used sexual demoralization to 'soften up' a people, the better to carry out "the secret of all domination: to make the dominated participate to their own domination."

    Finally, which scenario -- the one that Riefenstahl describes in "Triumph of the Will" or the one theorized by Michael Jones and applied as described by Cora Sol Goldstein, more closely fits the situation of American people relative to Madeleine Albright's answer to Leslie Stahl.

    Specifically,


    Did such blood curdling admission aired on a widely attended transmission as CBS’ 60 Minutes move the American public opinion of an inch? Did it prevent American public from endorsing “twice” such genocidal war criminals as Clinton, Bush and Obama? Did it prevent 30 years of killing of and misery for millions of human beings, most of them children, women and innocent civilians?

    The answer is that the public is guilty as much as the rulers.
     

    Incomprehensibly, you leap from that question to a condemnation of the German people.

    I say incomprehensibly because, as the world knows, German leaders and the German people have been punished and punished and punished again, many times for crimes they did not commit but were convicted of ex post facto charges, in kangaroo courts, after being tortured, based on falsified evidence; while no American or Allied or "Coalition of the Willing" leader or foot soldier has been called to account, either for crimes committed flagrantly and deliberately against the German people in WWII, nor in the events Madeleine Albright claims she was "tricked" into admitting.

    I submit that the fraudulent holocaust narrative has provided a smoke screen behind which the US -- and Jews, and Anglos -- hide, to evade accountability for their egregious crimes against humanity. And it is precisely the seeming impunity those groups enjoy as a result of enforcing -- under threat of criminal prosecution -- that outrageously false narrative that empowers them to commit more and more of the same heinous crimes against humanity.

    For that reason, I submit that it is essential to deconstruct the holocaust narrative; bring to justice Americans, Anglos and Jews who have committed these crimes; require that they make reparations and repent of their evil deeds.

    There is no other way.

    The German people have paid their debt and far in excess. They deserve -- they demand -- return to their rightful place as a model among the nations.

    Your point is partisan, mine isn’t.

    [MORE]

    After the Holocaust, many observers and scholars wondered if there was something distinctive about German identity that made Germans more prone to obedient behavior than individuals from other cultures. Stanley Milgram, a professor at Yale University, decided to find out by recruiting college students to take part in what he called “a study of the effects of punishment on learning.” Working with pairs, Milgram designated one volunteer as “teacher” and the other as “learner.” As the “teacher” watched, the “learner” was strapped into a chair with an electrode attached to each wrist. The “learner” was then told to memorize word pairs for a test and warned that wrong answers would result in electric shocks. The “learner” was, in fact, a [acting] member of Milgram’s team. The real focus of the experiment was the “teacher.” Each was taken to a separate room and seated before a “shock generator” with switches ranging from 15 volts labeled “slight shock” to 450 volts labeled “danger—severe shock.” Each “teacher” was told to administer a “shock” for each wrong answer. The shock was to increase by 15 volts every time the “learner” responded incorrectly. The volunteer received a practice shock before the test began to get an idea of the pain involved. In Milgram’s words, “The point of the experiment is to see how far a person will proceed in a concrete and measurable situation in which he is ordered to inflict increasing pain on a protesting victim. At what point will the subject refuse to obey the experimenter?”

    Milgram’s hypothesis was that Germans would be more obedient than United States subjects and that most volunteers would refuse to give electric shocks of more than 150 volts. A group of psychologists and psychiatrists predicted that less than one-tenth of 1% of the volunteers would administer all 450 volts [supposedly lethal]. To everyone’s amazement, 65% gave the full 450 volts! Philip Zimbardo, a psychologist at Stanford University, made the following comments about Milgram’s study:

    “The question to ask of Milgram’s research is not why the majority of normal, average subjects behave in evil (felonious) ways, but what did the disobeying minority do after they refused to continue to shock the poor soul, who was so obviously in pain? Did they intervene, go to his aid, did they denounce the researcher, protest to higher authorities, etc.? No, even their disobedience was within the framework of “acceptability,” they stayed in their seats, “in their assigned place,” politely, psychologically demurred, and they waited to be dismissed by the authority.”

    …… an experiment conducted by Ron Jones, a history teacher in California in the 1960s, whose findings also reveal how obedience is a dominant facet of human behavior. While teaching a unit on Nazi Germany, he asked his students to obey specific commands about how to sit, answer questions, and salute him. Jones was shocked to find that nearly all of his students willingly, and even enthusiastically, obeyed his every command. Within several days, Jones orchestrated a series of rules for “Third Wave” members to follow, including reporting infractions of classmates who were not obeying these commands. Again, an overwhelming majority of students followed Jones’s plans, even threatening to beat up the minority of students who were skeptical of the Third Wave. Worried parents of these students called Jones to find out what was happening in school. “I was hoping he would come in with a tremendous amount of rage,” say Jones, referring to his conversation with a concerned father. Instead of being angry, the parent accepted Jones’s explanation.

    At this point, Jones was looking for an excuse to stop the Third Wave, such as intervention on the part of parents or school administrators. But, this was not to be. After about a week, when Jones recognized that the experiment had gotten out of control, he knew he had to take steps to end it.
    At an assembly, he told his students, “There is no Third Wave movement. . . . You and I are no better or worse than the citizens of the Third Reich. We would have worked in the defense plants. We will watch our neighbors be taken away, and do nothing,” Jones declared, referring to the three skeptics who had been exiled to the library for the crime of disbelief. “We’re just like those Germans.

    https://www.facinghistory.org/resource-library/decision-making-times-injustice/obedience#endnote7

    Read More
  201. Cyrano says:
    @AP
    If I have a medication that is 100% effective for males but 0% effective for females, do I report that the medication is only 50%?

    If there are two groups with different results the groups are included differently.

    Based on PISA results, Americans of European background perform better than almost all Europeans. They are tied with the Swiss. So American schools are great for Americans of European backgrounds. Almost the best in the world.

    American Latinos perform better than all Latin Americans. So American schools are great for Latinos.

    American Asians outperform all Asian countries other than Singapore. So American schools are about the best in the world for Asian kids.

    There isn't data on PISA for Africa - I strongly suspect African Americans outperform all Africans.

    With very few exception, each of the world's peoples of all backgrounds who end up in America, a diverse nation, do better in American schools than they their brothers do in their native countries. But because America is much more diverse than, for example, European or Asian countries, and accepts and educates people from lower performing countries, the national average in America is a little lower than that of many European and Asian countries.

    Those are the realistic findings - not ones that erroneously pretend that all groups are the same.

    But thanks for confirming, with your silly arguments, your cluelessness, which we now see is not limited to Ukraine, communism, etc. but is a global trait.

    I think I have a better comparison, If one person is punching you in the head, while another one is giving you a foot massage – does that mean that overall you are doing OK? But enough of that, let’s stick to the original question which nobody seems to know: Was the War of independence a French coup or not? Can anybody answer that? And can it all be explained through the Jewish conspiracy theory? I am sure it can, but I need you to tell me the details. Was is it a coup? Then we’ll move over to Ukraine and clear that one too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @AP

    I think I have a better comparison, If one person is punching you in the head, while another one is giving you a foot massage – does that mean that overall you are doing OK?
     
    Since almost everybody in the USA is doing better than their peers in their own countries, nobody is being "punched in the head."

    But, given your poor intelligence level and poor education, it is understood that making relevant analogies is beyond your capability.
  202. AP says:
    @Cyrano
    I think I have a better comparison, If one person is punching you in the head, while another one is giving you a foot massage - does that mean that overall you are doing OK? But enough of that, let's stick to the original question which nobody seems to know: Was the War of independence a French coup or not? Can anybody answer that? And can it all be explained through the Jewish conspiracy theory? I am sure it can, but I need you to tell me the details. Was is it a coup? Then we'll move over to Ukraine and clear that one too.

    I think I have a better comparison, If one person is punching you in the head, while another one is giving you a foot massage – does that mean that overall you are doing OK?

    Since almost everybody in the USA is doing better than their peers in their own countries, nobody is being “punched in the head.”

    But, given your poor intelligence level and poor education, it is understood that making relevant analogies is beyond your capability.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Cyrano

    Since almost everybody in the USA is doing better than their peers in their own countries...
     
    I am sure that you are, and I am happy that y’all are doing so great. Maybe that explains the uncontrollable urge to go around the world and share some of that good fortune with others via… well I don’t know? Bombs? Coups? Armed interventions for humanitarian purposes? We are all so grateful for your kindness and for your willingness to help out the less fortunate. Keep up the good work.
  203. AP says:
    @alexander
    You make some reasonable points, AP.

    Since you are so sure it was not a " coup" perhaps you should take the time to read two articles which discuss this exact issue, written by Robert Parry for Consortium News.

    They are archived and can be easily found by typing "Ukraine" in the search bar at the website "Consortium News"

    The first was written on Sept 2, 2014 "Who's telling the Big Lie on Ukraine"

    The second was written on June 22, 2015 "NYT's Orwellian view of Ukraine"

    I am curious to know what you think.

    Neither one of the articles offer much “proof” that this was a “coup”, other than repeating someone else who said so and repeating Nuland’s tape, which just means she was arranging meetings and expressing her preference.

    That fact that Parry keeps repeating that Yanukovich was the elected president and keeps omitting that Yanukovich, after winning the presidency, did a lot of nondemocratic things indicates that he is playing a game of lying by omission and is a poor source of objective information.

    He does point out, accurately, that the Western mainstream media has been underplaying the role that neo-Nazis have been playing in Ukraine. But then, take what he writes with a big grain of salt, given that he is clearly not objective himself and indeed he overemphasizes their influence and mixes non-Nazi far-rightists with neo-Nazis. But that’s another topic.

    If you’re interested, here is a comprehensive and detailed article about the far right in Ukraine:

    http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.com/2015/01/whither-ukrainian-far-right.html

    The author is not perfect, but he is a lot more knowledgeable and objective than the source you linked to.

    Read More
  204. Cyrano says:
    @AP

    I think I have a better comparison, If one person is punching you in the head, while another one is giving you a foot massage – does that mean that overall you are doing OK?
     
    Since almost everybody in the USA is doing better than their peers in their own countries, nobody is being "punched in the head."

    But, given your poor intelligence level and poor education, it is understood that making relevant analogies is beyond your capability.

    Since almost everybody in the USA is doing better than their peers in their own countries…

    I am sure that you are, and I am happy that y’all are doing so great. Maybe that explains the uncontrollable urge to go around the world and share some of that good fortune with others via… well I don’t know? Bombs? Coups? Armed interventions for humanitarian purposes? We are all so grateful for your kindness and for your willingness to help out the less fortunate. Keep up the good work.

    Read More
  205. @Wally
    Indeed, the 'women's march' was nothing more than Rebels Without a Clue.

    53% of all white women voted for Trump.

    62% of non-college degree white women voted for Trump.

    And who did we see at this childish event? The white women who lost, that's who. So where was their mandated 'diversity'?

    Yet there was no real issues. Rove vs. Wade is all about taxpayer funding of abortions, not whether women can or cannot get abortions. Their arguments are pure strawman, false.

    Why should US taxpayers be forced to pay for other people's abortions when those people made their own choice to have sex?

    Of course they won't discuss the fact that women are legally stoned in Muslim countries, or that women can't even drive cars in Muslim countries, and the fact that gays are legally executed for being gay in Muslim countries.
    And that Hillary took millions in 'donations' from those very countries.

    For sure though, wearing pink 'PUSSY' hats really helps advance 'women's dignity'

    'feminist' Miley Cyrus certainly knows how to advance 'women's dignity':
    http://images.intouchweekly.com/uploads/posts/image/69834/miley-cyrus.jpg

    And guess what. When they got home afterwards Trump was still President of the US.

    Why should US taxpayers be forced to pay for other people’s abortions when those people made their own choice to have sex?

    Using that logic, why should US taxpayers be forced to pay for other people’s treatments for injuries and medications when many of the injuries and problems necessitating medication result from behaviors that people choose to engage in? Many cardiovascular and psychiatric issues result, to a large extent, from people’s unwillingness to, e.g., drink less soda, eat fewer burgers, and exercise regularly. Many injuries (e.g., broken bones, burns, alcohol poisoning) result from stupid actions that people choose to make. If you want to make the argument that taxpayer money should not be used for medical procedures for problems that result from choices, then you’re going to have to deny coverage for many more procedures than just abortion.

    Read More
  206. Wade says:

    If you are a journalist and depend for your income on a mainstream newspaper or are hired by a TV company, you run the risk of losing your job if you do not engage in self-censorship.

    E.g. Rick Sanchez..

    Read More
  207. Only professor’s emeritus can tell truth, because they are financially independent (retired).

    The corporate-fascist, western, mainstream media has their own NATO agenda: wars for Wallstreet profit: they deny the Western/HouseofSaud backed ISIS, who perpetrated the Syrian holocaust.

    For a Dutch professor from the Anne Frank country, he sounds remarkably outspoken and conspiratorial: Noam Chomsky is a Zionist gatekeeper.

    In 1850, Multatuli already exclaimed in his book Max Havelaar: “er ligt een roofstaat aan zee, tussen West-Friesland en de Schelde” (Holland = a robber-state).

    So no news here, from Karl Rove: the morality of greed & control of the ruling elitists (US billionaires, EU kings, Queens, Generals & colonols) has not changed in 165 years.

    Read More
  208. m___ says:

    Said well, in no terms better then some others, above mindset analysis is not science, it is base earthiness, to analyse, and analyse well, and peal of the layers of deceit, is trivial to even ‘uneducated’ minds, with sufficient processing power, …energy-wise, psychologically, socially, the effort tends to render the individual a non-person. No career, no job, no friends. The social dilemma: participate in a society that runs itself into the wall, and becoming one of the “beautiful” ones( eat, sleep and groom, no sexual interests), is the dilemma to individual exit, no way out to achievement, social recognizance, self-respect.

    No one incorporates the world better, as “for worse” then Chomsky, the exquisite example of holding ambiguous values in an average(as far as intellectuals go) brain. Citing conventional alliances, referring to method and institution, to fellow academics, and then denouncing mere abuse, not the same systemics, institutions, and intelligentsia. His croony-craws are in the waiting, to take his place as a larger then life “Mickey Mouse” character. Mind mentioning Noami Klein, Bill McCibben, Nomi Prins, and miriad of second rate brains, that give a surface polish to deep state policies, the corporations.

    Real minds? , within power circles are in hiding, outside one has to cope with the denial(justified by lack of energy and brain power, upon historical precedence, by being indoctrinated by tone and inferior content) of the masses, and the denial by the system out of mere interest not to let in by chance some-one not vetted first, then licensed to pronounce himself in diction and writing, as a zomby, a submissive basket-case of masochism.

    Technology is basically neutral, more layers of lies, and anything in the public domain is a lie, by a larger definition of ‘lie’, will cope with quality of ideas, scientific approaches to governance, even the definition of what could be the real namers of our times and their inter-relationship. From the hip: the obsolescence of war, the entwine-ment of ecology-economy-sociology-religion-philosophy, the difference and co-acting of systemics, strategy and tactics, institutions, ideas, and insider individuals. The tweaking of the big-data by interested algorithms, the refactoring of epistomology into rocket-stoves, not rocket-science.

    Read More
  209. JUNIUS says:
    @Nils
    Yes,

    Whatch CafeWeltschmerz.nl, theinterview with Niemöller.

    A word of caution about Niemöller. He was a star in the western media’s propaganda war against Germany for the seven years he was imprisoned for his anti-government activism. Niemöller also stated that he would rather see his homeland in ruins than stripped of his Draconian version of Christianity. He sided with his nation’s enemies when she was attacked by the mighty British and French empires.

    Niemoller’s critique of liberalism was identical to Hitler’s. He too held that liberalism’s obsession with democracy and individual freedom had failed, had in fact produced weak nations populated by alienated narcissists for whom the phrase “the common welfare” had no meaning. But his solution was traditional Christianity enshrined in the context of a neo-theocratic authoritarian government.

    Niemöller was influential in creating the October 1945 Declaration of Stuttgart, in which it was announced that all Germans were “guilty” of the crimes alleged by the Soviets at the ongoing Nuremberg Tribunals to have been committed by their late government. That Niemöller, a Lutheran cleric, should so avidly have advocated a collective German guilt is surrealistic, for no one more clearly recognized that the nature of guilt is personal, and not collective, than Martin Luther. Luther’s Ninety-Five Theses of 1517 were expressions of a religion of the individual conscience. In Lutheranism, guilt, like faith, can by its very nature only be personal.

    Read More
  210. […] Of course he was absolutely right. As Dutch journalist Karel van Wolferen wrote last week for the Unz Review, […]

    Read More
  211. riddle says:
    @AaronB
    Thanks for your interesting comment.

    Its quite possible to be an atheist hermit. Some people are extremely disillusioned without being particularly religious, like Ted Kaczynski. But seeing through the human farce tends to open one up to religious possibilities, at the very least. If you read the religious literature, at a certain stage on the path, after the death of the ego, its quite common to return to the "marketplace", to share your liberating insight with the rest of humanity - who, of course and inevitably and always, reject and mock the message. But at that stage, the religious mystic has dissolved enough of his self to not mind the mortification.

    There really has been a "loss of dimension" in Western thinking over the past 50 years, and I don't know how better to describe it. It's not like we're stupider, but there's been a kind of "narrowing" of perspective, a massive deflation. Fewer and fewer elements are considered, and issues are seen from an ever narrower perspective. What we are seeing, really, is the final stages of the reductionist paradigm, which is rapidly reaching its last stage of absurdity.The intellectual history of the past 500 years in the West is the ever increasing expansion of reductionist thinking, but its yielding less and less power, more and more absurdity, and ever increasing alienation and despair, undermining societies that organize themselves according to it precepts. Like many things, the search for power seems ultimately to undermine itself - the sacrifices needed to gain power leads to nihilism, and thus ultimately to the loss of power.

    In hindsight, the Western quest for power always had a time-limit, and we are now approaching it.

    I am not in the least surprised that people find you crazy for suggesting there might be a "suprasensible" realm. That's the standard response. Even though its philosophically unchallengeable, its a huge threat to convention, and it calls into question entire ways of life.

    The Greeks were problematic, I agree, and much that is wrong with the West can be traced back to them. But in contrast with later European philosophy, especially in the Anglo-sphere, they never completely lost sight of the true role of philosophy, which is about how to live. Socrates and the pre-socratics, and later the hellenistic philosophers, were, of course, the best in this regard. Plato's philosophy has strong Eastern overtones, and the Western mystical tradition derives from neo-Platonism, and many scholars see an Eastern connection here. The similarity of early, pre-church Christianity to Buddhism is also apparent.

    Eastern philosophies and religions have very strong affinities to pre-modern and Medieval ways of thinking - the old West and East weren't so different, after all. The real dichotomy is between the "modern" and the "traditional", not so much East and West. Even the logical and practical Aristotle thought "techne" was the least important knowledge achievable by man, and placed "impractical" contemplation at the summit of human thought.

    The "humble and clear minded" Eastern approach can be usefully opposed to the "grandiose" element in the West, I agree. As you say, one leas to much mundane power, the other not so much - but it has led to personal transformation and bliss, which should be the true occupation of mankind. Power is a substitute satisfaction.

    when the area of ‘religion’ is addressed, why is it always confined to western and eastern
    rather than including the spiritual world of Native Americans and other aboriginal groups?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Madhava reader
    Any non-ethnographic effort will deal with culturally relevant currents.

    The complaint you present in the form of a question would be well replied to with another question: why do people who study the organ find the compositions by J.S. Bach in their books of music and history of music, and not those of every other Capellmeister operating in Germany in that century (and what about the ones I picked out in my teen years? Why haven't those been printed?).

    When and if the "Native Americans" and "other aboriginal groups" will reach the stage of a written culture, they are very likely to write about their spiritual world first, if not exclusively (which isn't likely to elicit complaints on your part). You should hope for them to reach that stage.
  212. @annamaria
    "The Guardian is particularly despicable."
    Agree. A scoundrel usurped the name of a virtuous person and this makes everybody wonder why the formerly reliable Guardian has been publishing propaganda trash. And it is true that the Guardian' comment section is a perfect censorship machine. The Soviet Union lookout for a dissent on steroids.

    “The Guardian is particularly despicable.”
    Agree. A scoundrel usurped the name of a virtuous person and this makes everybody wonder why the formerly reliable Guardian has been publishing propaganda trash. And it is true that the Guardian’ comment section is a perfect censorship machine. The Soviet Union lookout for a dissent on steroids.

    Guardian journalists, like the rest of the British MSM, belong to the “British-American Project”, whose role is to demarcate the Overton Window and promote groupthink.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/media/2007/12/pilger-bap-values-british

    Read More
  213. @riddle
    when the area of 'religion' is addressed, why is it always confined to western and eastern
    rather than including the spiritual world of Native Americans and other aboriginal groups?

    Any non-ethnographic effort will deal with culturally relevant currents.

    The complaint you present in the form of a question would be well replied to with another question: why do people who study the organ find the compositions by J.S. Bach in their books of music and history of music, and not those of every other Capellmeister operating in Germany in that century (and what about the ones I picked out in my teen years? Why haven’t those been printed?).

    When and if the “Native Americans” and “other aboriginal groups” will reach the stage of a written culture, they are very likely to write about their spiritual world first, if not exclusively (which isn’t likely to elicit complaints on your part). You should hope for them to reach that stage.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS
PastClassics
A simple remedy for income stagnation
Confederate Flag Day, State Capitol, Raleigh, N.C. -- March 3, 2007
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored