The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Stephen J. Sniegoski Archive
Liberals Morph from Peaceniks to Warhawks on Government Intelligence Agencies
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll 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 three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

“The world is seething with lies about me and the damnable thing is that most of them are true!”

Winston Churchill

During the latter decades of the Cold War with Soviet Russia, the charge of being “unpatriotic” or “anti-American” caused American liberals (excluding those who had to rely on the votes of regular Americans to hold political office) to burst into spasms of ridicule and howls of “Red-baiting,” “war-mongering,” “witch-hunting,” and “fascism.” Sophisticated folks, liberals implied, would never even deign to think of doing anything so gauche as to automatically support their country in its fight against what they sarcastically called the “Red Menace.” America’s very possession of nuclear weapons was considered a danger to all humanity and many liberals flirted with the idea of U.S. unilateral nuclear disarmament. And the slogan of the Democratic candidate for president in 1972, George McGovern, was “Come Home, America” — which meant U.S. military retrenchment that mainstream liberals now lambast as “isolationism.”

During this not-too-long-ago era (at least, it was not too long ago for me, who is too rapidly approaching the biblically allotted three-score and ten), the CIA and the FBI were considered the bête noire in this liberal Weltanschauung. FBI director J. Edgar Hoover, with his penchant for spying on innocent people, was regarded as thoroughly vicious. The CIA was notorious for being involved in the overthrow of nice democratic governments (at least, that is how liberals viewed them) in such countries as Iran, Guatemala, and Chile, and spying on leftist critics in the United States. The villainous nature of the CIA and FBI was a theme in many Hollywood movies of the era.[1]Maria Lauino, “Hollywood Presents: Government as Villain,” New York Times, February 12, 1995,

Now let’s return to the present and the liberal hysteria over purported Russian interference with the U.S. presidential election. The most bandied about charge involves “hacking” the DNC and Podesta emails and providing these to WikiLeaks to denigrate Hillary Clinton, thus preventing her from becoming president. The support for this claim, at least as it has been presented to the America public, rests only on assertions made by the U.S. Intelligence Community, and this dearth of proof was continued in the most recent report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections,” released to the public on January 6. The report represents the unclassified findings of the intelligence community’s investigation of Russian involvement in the 2016 election. In the words of the report: “Thus, while the conclusions in the report are all reflected in the classified assessment, the declassified report does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.”[2]“Background to ‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections’: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution,” January 6, 2016, p. 1.

Even some believers, especially those who might know something about cyber technology and the capabilities of America’s intelligence agencies, evinced some concern about the report’s lack of substantiating evidence. For example, Wired, a high-tech webzine that usually follows the current progressive line, published an article titleds“Feds’ Damning Report on Russian Election Hack Won’t Convince Skeptics,” in which Robert Graham, an analyst for the cybersecurity firm Erratasec, was quoted as saying: “But knowing what data they [U.S. intelligence agencies] probably have, they could have given us more details. And that really pisses me off.”[3]Andy Greenberg, “Feds’ Damning Report on Russian Election Hack Won’t Convince Skeptics,” Wired, January 6, 2017, The thrust of the article is that the lack of substantial proof fails to convince skeptics, not that the intelligence report’s claims could be wrong. This position is rather understandable since skepticism about traditional beliefs such as Christianity is highly lauded by progressives, but skepticism is not allowed to cast doubt on the progressive narrative of the day.

President Obama went somewhat further in his attack on non-believers. In an interview on ABC News on January 6, Obama insinuated, and, in some cases, openly stated that people who express skepticism about the findings and conclusions drawn by the U.S. Intelligence Community are not on America’s “team” and are siding with Putin; in fact, he maintains that they “love” Putin. In short, Obama has come to assume that the American people must not question the sanctity of the U.S. “Intelligence Community.” To do otherwise signifies not merely a lack of patriotism but actual love for America’s alleged number one adversary—Vladimir Putin. “One of the things that I’ve urged the president-elect to do is to develop a strong working relationship with the intelligence community,” Obama stated. “We have to remind ourselves we’re on the same team. Vladimir Putin’s not on our team.” Obama warned that “If we get to a point where people in this country feel more affinity with a leader who is an adversary and view the United States and our way of life as a threat to him, then we’re gonna have bigger problems than just cyber hacking.” It appears to Obama that some politicians and reporters “seem to have more confidence in Vladimir Putin than fellow Americans because those fellow Americans are Democrats.” And he solemnly pontificated: “That cannot be.”[4]Kevin Liptak, “Obama: ‘Vladimir Putin is not on our team,’” CNN, January 6, 2017,


Obama continued with this rather dystopian view: “[I]n this new information age, it is possible for misinformation, for cyber hacking and so forth to have an impact on our open societies, our open systems, to insinuate themselves into our democratic practices in ways that I think are accelerating.” Although “cyber hacking” existed even before Obama entered the White House and “misinformation,” according to the Bible, existed even when Adam and Eve resided in the Garden of Eden, Obama implies that he only now became aware of this possibility.[5]Liptak.

Now the term “open society” was popularized (at least in intellectual circles) by the philosopher Karl Popper.[6]Noted philosopher Henri Bergson actually introduced the term “open society.” and its most prominent proponent today is billionaire George Soros (a student of Popper’s). Soros’ Open Society Institute has as its goal spreading the “open society” world-wide. An open society, as Popper presented it, would be open to all types of ideas with people being free to make their own decisions. Soros, in contrast, expressed a view similar to that of Obama, contending that “Popper failed to recognize that in democratic politics, gathering public support takes precedence over the pursuit of truth. In other areas, such as science and industry, the impulse to impose one’s views on the world encounters the resistance of external reality. But in politics the electorate’s perception of reality can be easily manipulated. As a result, political discourse, even in democratic societies, does not necessarily lead to a better understanding of reality.”[7]George Soros, Project Syndicate, November 8, 2007, The implication is that gatekeepers are needed to protect “truth.” As one critic puts it: “the Open Society Institute embodies Popper’s idea of an open society the way the German Democratic Republic (East Germany) embodied democracy.”[8]Jonathan David Carson, “The Left’s Theft of the Open Society and the Scientific Method,” American Thinker, April 24, 2008,

Moving away from the focus on hacking, the recent ODNI report describes the Russian effort to affect the US election as “multifaceted” and devotes almost half of the report to propaganda (despite the negative connotation, propaganda can be true) spread by Russia, especially by its major government-sponsored television network for foreign countries, RT.

Moreover, the intelligence report interprets the alleged Russian effort to aid Trump in the election as only one part of a broader goal to combat the United States’ “liberal democratic order,” stating: “Russian efforts to influence the 2016 US presidential election represent the most recent expression of Moscow’s longstanding desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order, but these activities demonstrated a significant escalation in directness, level of activity, and scope of effort compared to previous operations.”[9]Intelligence Community Assessment, “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections,” p. ii. Moreover, the report considers any type of criticism of the United States as a “desire to undermine the US-led liberal democratic order.” And the report deals with aspects of this broader goal that are entirely unrelated to any Russian effort to aid Trump. This is of the utmost importance since the media narrative focuses on the idea that Russia aided Trump in the 2016 election but, for proof, relies on a report that deals with a much broader subject. That Russian media provides a negative view of America does not mean that this propaganda played a role in making Trump president. And it is not only the mainstream media but even the leaders of the intelligence community who blur this distinction.

Illustrating the point made above about the report’s concern with Russia’s alleged broader goal is its devotion of considerable space to Russian news stories casting the United States government and economic system in a negative light, but having nothing to do with Trump or the 2016 election. For example, the report observed that “RT aired a documentary about the Occupy Wall Street movement on 1, 2, and 4 November [2016]. RT framed the movement as a fight against ‘the ruling class’ and described the current US political system as corrupt and dominated by corporations. RT advertising for the documentary featured Occupy movement calls to ‘take back’ the government. The documentary claimed that the US system cannot be changed democratically, but only through ‘revolution.’”[10]Assessing, p.7. Although this report disparages the existing economic system in the United States, it could hardly be interpreted as encouraging anyone to vote for billionaire Donald Trump with his proposed agenda that included lower tax rates—especially the corporate tax rate–and a reduction in economic regulation that liberals and Democrats claimed helped only the wealthy.

The study also points out that “RT runs anti-fracking programming, highlighting environmental issues and the impacts on public health. This is likely reflective of the Russian Government’s concern about the impact of fracking and US natural gas production on the global energy market and the potential challenges to Gazprom’s profitability.”[11]Assessing, p.8. That Russia’s alleged favored candidate Trump was pro-fracklng whereas Hillary straddled the issue would mean that the RT anti-fracking program could militate against supporting Trump.

The report also maintains that “RT’s reports often characterize the United States as a ‘surveillance state’ and allege widespread infringements of civil liberties, police brutality, and drone use.”[12]Assessing, p. 7. Again, this would not seem to generate support for Trump.

The report refers to articles written in 2012 that deal with the U.S. presidential election that year, which did not involve Trump, and reflects the fact the study covers, as the title states, recent U.S. elections, not just the 2016 election. For example, “In the runup to the 2012 US presidential election in November, English-language channel RT America . . . intensified its usually critical coverage of the United States. The channel portrayed the US electoral process as undemocratic and featured calls by US protesters for the public to rise up and ‘take this government back.’”[13]Assessing, p. 6.

Still dealing with the 2012 election, the intelligence report stated: “From August to November 2012, RT ran numerous reports on alleged US election fraud and voting machine vulnerabilities, contending that US election results cannot be trusted and do not reflect the popular will.”[14]Assessing, p. 6. Oddly, this is almost identical to what the mainstream media has been saying since Trump won the election.

But what about the “fake news” — fictitious articles deliberately fabricated to deceive–that the mainstream media claimed helped Trump, largely by harming Clinton? For example, a Washington Post article, dated November 24, 2016, was titled: “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say.”[15]Craig Timberg, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say,” Washington Post, November 24, 2016, CNN, in its article, “The reality behind Russia’s fake news,” dated December 2, made similar claims, relying heavily on the aforementioned Washington Post article.[16]Jill Dougherty, “The reality behind Russia’s fake news,” CNN, December 2, 2016,

(After extensive criticism including legal threats from the sites the Washington Post described as Russian propaganda outlets, the Post added its lengthy editor’s note distancing itself from the anonymous group that provided the key claims of Russian “fake news” saying that the Post would not vouch for its validity.)[17]Glenn Greenwald, “WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived,” The Intercept, January 4, 2017,

Even Director of National Intelligence James Clapper referred to the Russians making use of “fake news” during the election. In a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on “Foreign Cyber Threats to the United States” on January 5. 2017, Senator Jack Reed (Democrat, Rhode Island) asked Clapper about media reports that held that Russia was engaged in the creation of “fake news.” Clapper responded: “This was a multifaceted campaign. So, the hacking was only one part of it, and it also entailed classical propaganda, disinformation, fake news.”[18]Alex Griswold, “James Clapper Confirms Russia Was Behind Fake News During 2016 Election,” Mediaite, January 5, 2017, When the January 6 ODNI report was released, NBC News even claimed that it mentioned “a series of fake news stories damaging to Clinton, many of which got their start with Russian-backed outlets.”[19]Ken Dilanian, “Report: Putin, Russia Tried to Help Trump By ‘Discrediting’ Clinton,” NBC News, January 6, 2017,

Considering the many references to “fake news,” even by the Director of National Intelligence, it is astonishing that the January 6 report did not cite any examples of this alleged phenomenon—or even mention it. What stands out is the absence of the term “fake news.” Did “fake news” itself turn out to be “fake news”? Whatever the case, the mainstream media did not seem to notice the absence of “fake news” from the report.

While the Intelligence Community did not make any mention of “fake news” in its report, it did make general claims—assessments by the intelligence community — that held that Russia favored Trump over Hillary Clinton. For example: “We assess the influence campaign aspired to help President-elect Trump’s chances of victory when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to the President-elect.”[20]Assessing, p.2. The report also states: “RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the US presidential campaign was consistently negative and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her of corruption, poor physical and mental health, and ties to Islamic extremism. Some Russian officials echoed Russian lines for the influence campaign that Secretary Clinton’s election could lead to a war between the United States and Russia.”[21]Assessing, p. 4. None of these political views differed from what the anti-Clinton media in the U.S. expressed, so it is not apparent how Russia would add any credibility to these claims. It might even have tended to detract from them, which seems to be the case after the election. And since Russian officials did make the aforementioned claim about war, the mention of it does not seem to reflect any type of bias.

In contrast to the Russian depiction of Clinton, the intelligence report stated that Russian government media outlets RT and Sputnik “consistently cast President-elect Trump as the target of unfair coverage from traditional US media outlets that they claimed were subservient to a corrupt political establishment.”[22]Assessing, p.4. This view was also commonly expressed by the more conservative media in the U.S., even that media which was not supportive of Trump.

RT put forth an extensive refutation of the intelligence report’s claims in an article entitled, “All the ways RT ‘influenced’ American politics ‒ it’s not what the ODNI thinks,” dated January7.[23]RT, “All the ways RT ‘influenced’ American politics ‒ it’s not what the ODNI thinks,” January 7, 2017, In many cases, RT made an effort to show that it also presented news stories that were contrary to those that the report cited—in essence, that its reporting was balanced while the intelligence report “cherry picked” RT stories to fit its narrative. It should be noted that no supporter of the Intelligence Community’s findings, from either the U.S. Intelligence Community itself or the private media, made the effort to rebut RT’s detailed criticism of the report.

It would seem to be self-evident that Russian media would act to promote Russian interests—although information used to achieve this goal might be true–just as US government-sponsored international media is intended to promote the interests of the United States. However, while the intelligence report holds that the Russian media was biased in favor of Trump, it fails to prove that bias. The report, for example, did not come up with any obvious erroneous information, such as the U.S. media’s account of the alleged killing of the incubator babies during Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990; the WMD story in the run-up to the 2003 war on Iraq; and the recent story about the Russians hacking the Vermont power grid.


The report could have relied upon a statistical analysis of the Russian media’s election reporting. Numerous efforts have been made in the United States to use statistics and computer analysis in assessing media bias. Analyses that stand out tend to conclude that the U.S. media have a liberal bias. They include: The News Twisters (1976) by Edith Efron; T he Media Elite (1986) by Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman, and Linda Lichter; Press Bias and Politics: How the Media Frame Controversial Issues (2002) by Jim A. Kuypers; and Left Turn: How Liberal Media Bias Distorts the American Mind, (2012) by Tim Groseclose. Many statisticians have found fault with these studies despite their often extensive use of statistical data and comparisons among various media outlets. If this extensive information can be rejected, how could one accept the intelligence report’s claims of Russian media bias where no statistical proof or even standards for determining bias exist? The intelligence report, indeed, not only eschews statistical analysis for its bias claims, but acknowledges that it does not even make a comparison between Russian media and U.S. media, stating that “it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.”[24]Assessing, p. i.

Moreover, it is not apparent that the Russian media would affect how any significant number of Americans vote. And the report explicitly states: “We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcome of the 2016 election.”[25]Assessing, p. i. With all the uproar about Russian meddling in the US election, and allegations by prominent figures that Trump is not a legitimate president, it would be expected that the report would try to determine if this alleged meddling had any effect on the election’s outcome.

The study does hint that Russian media might have had some effect on voting by using graphs that show it is competitive with leading international media—Al Jazeera English, BBC World, CNN/CNN International. The Economist, however, provides an effective statistical refutation of this claim: “In Twitter and Facebook, RT’s reach is narrower than that of other news networks . . . . Its biggest claim to dominance is on YouTube, where it bills itself as the ‘most watched news network’ on the platform. As the intelligence report fretfully notes, RT videos get 1m views a day, far surpassing other outlets. But this is mostly down to [due to] the network’s practice of buying the rights to sensational footage, for instance of Japan’s 2011 tsunami, and repackaging it with the company logo.”[26]RT’s propaganda is far less influential than Westerners fear,” The Economist, January 19, 2017, A September 2015 article in The Daily Beast, “Putin’s Propaganda TV Lies about Its Popularity,” states: “As of 2015, RT is still largely absent from cable news rankings.”[27]Katie Zavadski, ‘Putin’s Propaganda TV Its Lies About Popularity,” The Daily Beast, September17, 2015, Moreover, RT’s influence would seem to pale to insignificance compared to the totality of American media.

Considering all the information provided by the U.S. Intelligence Community, it would appear that the entire issue of the alleged Russian meddling in the election turns out to be, to quote the Bard, “full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”


[1] Maria Lauino, “Hollywood Presents: Government as Villain,” New York Times, February 12, 1995,

[2] “Background to ‘Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections’: The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution,” January 6, 2016, p. 1.

[3] Andy Greenberg, “Feds’ Damning Report on Russian Election Hack Won’t Convince Skeptics,” Wired, January 6, 2017,

[4] Kevin Liptak, “Obama: ‘Vladimir Putin is not on our team,’” CNN, January 6, 2017,

[5] Liptak.

[6] Noted philosopher Henri Bergson actually introduced the term “open society.”

[7] George Soros, Project Syndicate, November 8, 2007,

[8] Jonathan David Carson, “The Left’s Theft of the Open Society and the Scientific Method,” American Thinker, April 24, 2008,

[9] Intelligence Community Assessment, “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections,” p. ii.

[10] Assessing, p.7.

[11] Assessing, p.8.

[12] Assessing, p. 7.

[13] Assessing, p. 6.

[14] Assessing, p. 6.

[15] Craig Timberg, “Russian propaganda effort helped spread ‘fake news’ during election, experts say,” Washington Post, November 24, 2016,

[16] Jill Dougherty, “The reality behind Russia’s fake news,” CNN, December 2, 2016,

[17] Glenn Greenwald, “WashPost Is Richly Rewarded for False News About Russia Threat While Public Is Deceived,” The Intercept, January 4, 2017,

[18] Alex Griswold, “James Clapper Confirms Russia Was Behind Fake News During 2016 Election,” Mediaite, January 5, 2017,

[19] Ken Dilanian, “Report: Putin, Russia Tried to Help Trump By ‘Discrediting’ Clinton,” NBC News, January 6, 2017,

[20] Assessing, p.2.

[21] Assessing, p. 4.

[22] Assessing, p.4.

[23] RT, “All the ways RT ‘influenced’ American politics ‒ it’s not what the ODNI thinks,” January 7, 2017,

[24] Assessing, p. i.

[25] Assessing, p. i.

[26] RT’s propaganda is far less influential than Westerners fear,” The Economist, January 19, 2017,

[27] Katie Zavadski, ‘Putin’s Propaganda TV Its Lies About Popularity,” The Daily Beast, September17, 2015,

• Category: Foreign Policy • Tags: American Media, Donald Trump, Russia 
Hide 41 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Mr. SNIEGOSKI has politely shortened the quote from Macbeth.
    Longer version is
    It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

    • Agree: Z-man
    • Replies: @joe webb
  2. RobinG says:

    If anybody hacked, bought, blackmailed or rigged this election, it was Israel.


    “In fact, safe zones were Hillary Clinton’s idea in the first place, and neither Russia nor Syria will accept the US coming in and establishing zones inside Syria which our sources tell us are to be used by Israel for logistics and intelligence centers for ISIS. The greatest failing of the Obama administration, trying to sell the world that there really is a “moderate opposition” in Syria is now Trump policy as well, all coming from Tel Aviv.” Veterans Today

    Tulsi Gabbard (and husband) and Dennis Kucinich (and wife) touring Damascus and Aleppo is proof that the Assad controlled, SAA protected parts of Syria are Safe Zones.
    [One very good youtube video has already been taken down or blocked, so I hope these stick.)

    Voices of Syria: Songs from Damascus

    Four photos from Syria

    • Agree: Seamus Padraig
    • Replies: @Debbie Menon
    , @Agent76
    , @RobinG
  3. Wally says: • Website

    “Soros’ Open Society Institute has as its goal spreading the “open society” world-wide. ”

    Except to “that shitty little country”.

    Leftists support Israeli immigration laws which specify Jews Only, while those same leftists demand mass 3rd world immigration into the US & Europe.

    Leftists support Israel’s very real, existing wall while opposing Trump’s proposal.

    • Replies: @Anon
  4. This well documented 180 degree shark jumping turn reveals ‘progressives” to have morphed into fascists. I agree that the “safe zone” idea itself bears this “progressive” taint and Soros is a criminal and a traitor to civilization. We should see what develops out of this “safe zones” thing, since even Moon of Alabama has shown that it is likely less than meets the eye and that Gabbard was in contact with the pentagon and probably Trump before her appearance in Syria. For real as opposed to faux progressives, she is the only democrat with real foreign policy smarts.

  5. @RobinG

    Thank you Robin G.

    U.S. and other countries STOP supporting those who are destroying Syria and her people.

    Enough damage has already been done to a beautiful secular country and its people.

    • Replies: @CK
  6. If America is looking for RSPECT in the world, “America Has A Moral Obligation To Help Rebuild The Ravaged Middle East”

    STOP the insanity of the United States Neo-Conservatives/Neo-Liberals “Regime Change” agenda which have plagued American foreign policy for the past 15 years, resulting in destruction and devastation of nations and people and spread of extremism.

    Iraq, Libya and Syria had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no terrorists in these countries before the U.S. decided to change the regimes in these secular countries.


    • Replies: @annamaria
  7. Thank you, Stephen.

    Although, personally, I would appreciate lass minutiae (I’m sure we all understand the game), and more political and especially psychological (or should it be psychiatric?) analysis of the behavior exhibited by liberal zombies… Are they completely brain-dead? Or, as one may hope, is it a reversible neurological defect?

    • Replies: @Ted Bell
  8. macilrae says:

    The general suspicion that the CIA’s recent pronouncements have been politically motivated, vehemently denied of course, can now be established – or refuted – by the actions of the agency’s new administration: whose motivation is the polar-opposite of their predecessors. Fascinating.

  9. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Well, the Democrats’ policy has changed abruptly.

    As someone has observed, the purposes and ideals of movements tend to became coincident with the interests of the movement’s élite and the values that, in facts, best enable the pursuit of said interests.

    The élite controlling the Democratic party, then, must have changed much.

  10. Agent76 says:

    Jan 2, 2017 BOOM! CNN Caught Using Video Game Image In Fake Russian Hacking Story

    It looks like CNN Has tried to pull the wool over our eyes once again. This time, they used a screenshot from the Fallout 4 Video game to paint the picture of Russian Hacking. To bad that’s not what a real hacking screen looks like. And an image you will only find in the video game! Nice Try Clinton News Network!

  11. Agent76 says:

    A very good post RobinG.

    December 30, 2016 U.S. Is Selling Weapons That Kill A Child Every 10 Minutes

    While the world has been transfixed on the epic tragedy in Syria, another tragedy — a hidden one — has been consuming the children of Yemen. Battered by the twin evils of war and hunger, every 10 minutes a child in Yemen dies from malnutrition, diarrhea, or respiratory-tract infections, UNICEF reports. And without immediate medical attention, over 400,000 kids suffering from severe acute malnutrition could die, too. Why are so many of Yemen’s children going hungry and dying?

  12. CK says:
    @Debbie Menon

    There is something about secular Muslim nations that the US government abhors.

  13. Anonymous [AKA "wonderwerner"] says:

    You Russians…Did you hack my bank account And take my money? Oh no, that was me. I spent it, but I’ll blame you anyway. (I’m just trying to sound like the Democratic party in America ,everything is Russia’s fault.)

  14. RobinG says:

    Here it is! (The file was compromised and they reposted –

    Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Returns From Syria with Renewed Calls: End Regime Change War in Syria Now

    And here’s a new one –

    Voices of Syria – Rev. Ibrahim Nseir of the Arab Evangelical Presbyterian Church of Aleppo

    Thanks Debbie, exiled, and 76. Besides writing into cyberspace, lets get this bill passed. It’s the only tangible thing I know of. I’m praying for Trump, and that he’s stalling and appeasing by ‘studying’ safe zones. But that’s hope, and this is real –
    H.R.608 – To prohibit the use of United States Government funds to provide assistance to Al Qaeda, Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, and the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and to countries supporting those organizations, and for other purposes.

  15. Soros, in contrast, expressed a view similar to that of Obama, contending that “Popper failed to recognize that in democratic politics, gathering public support takes precedence over the pursuit of truth.”

    In other words: “Two plus two equals five, Winston.”

  16. Anon7 says:

    I was amazed by Democrats who seemingly reflexively supported the CIA in this past election and beyond. I grew up on a very liberal college campus during the Sixties, and if I had even suggested that the CIA had information that should be listened to, I would have been shouted down as a conservative and as an idiot. “The CIA? They lie about everything! They’re a scheming shadow government! Remember Allende, United Can, Vietnam, warmongering… etc. etc.”

    NOW, though, we must listen respectfully to the Professionals of the Intelligence Community, thank them for their service, and accept and believe their every utterance.

  17. Ted Bell says:
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    The psychological analysis is easy. Politics for many people, of all political stripes, is more of a team sport than an ideology. At least subconsciously, they don’t think themselves capable of forming moral judgments, or understanding society’s problems. Instead of wading through the evidence to come to logical conclusions, a task for which they my not in fact be competent, they just join a team, and let “the experts” think for them.

    As a Cleveland Browns fan, for instance, I can tell you that the Steelers are the worst team in sports, and their fans are the embodiment of evil. The fact that I can’t present any evidence for this, and that any rational person would conclude that the Steelers are currently a far superior team, has nothing to do with my beliefs. I’ve embraced the life of a Browns fan, therefore my fundamental identity is tied to the knowledge that the Steelers suck. Evidence to the contrary doesn’t even merit refutation; It’s prima facie heretical, and therefore wrong. It’s simply us against them, and it makes no difference who the “us” or the “them” is, or what either side says.

    How the Russians specifically were chosen as the current enemy is probably just habit. The over 40 crowd grew up knowing that them Ruskies were the enemy. The democrat leadership are betting on the belief that the American public still believes the Cold War propaganda. In my experience, the younger democrats, particularly the Bernie Bros, are openly laughing at this Russian hacking idea, even as they protest Trump. Having grown up without the Red Menace, they never got in the habit of blaming Russia.

    These two clips put it more succinctly than I ever could:

  18. joe webb says:
    @Immigrant from former USSR

    just for Truth, the Whole Truth, and nothing but the Truth, in quoting the Bard, or any other fiction writing….what is important is to be aware of which character is uttering the quoted words. The character may be a fool, a wise man or woman, or various other types.

    Someone who likes to dig, could consult the Bard and find who said it.


    • Replies: @edNels
    , @anon
  19. edNels says:
    @joe webb

    “Just the facts ma’m” Joe Friday! played by JW

  20. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    By ‘liberals’, which ones do we mean?

    I think there is a division within the Democratic Party. Not everyone is for war and neo-imperialism. And this is why the Democratic Elites are eager to ramp up the tensions. When there is division in the home, try to unite everyone by directing their ire at some FOREIGN enemy.

    Over the years, Jewish Power has become more central to the Democratic Party. Yet, at the same time, as the Party became all about Diversity and anti-white politics(at least in rhetoric because most privileged white urbanites are Democrats), there’s been rise of anti-Jewish sentiments, not least because the majority of People of Color side with Palestinians. And increasing numbers of Prog Jews are leaning to BDS or something similar, if only because they don’t want to look like hypocrites before the Diversity Crowd. And even though Democratic anti-white politics is really meant to be anti-deplorable-white and pro-virtue-signaling-white, the problem is a lot of People of Color cannot tell the difference between ‘good’ ones and ‘bad’ ones.

    So, there is a lot of divisions within the Party. So, Jewish elites of the party beat the war drums about RUSSIA and other foreign threats to rally the much divided troops. It’s gonna be more difficult than Ancient Jews trying to keep the 12 tribes together. There are now 120 nationalities in the US.
    Foreign policy is used as rallying cry, but it can also prove to be divisive. After all, if the Democratic Party comes down hard on China, it will alienate Asian-Americans. If it comes down hard on Muslims, it will piss off Muslims. On the one hand, Jewish Democrats want US foreign policy to be pro-Zionist and fight Wars for Israel. On the other hand, this is risky since it increases bad blood between US and the Muslim world. So, the Jewish-controlled media try to spin the Middle East issue as BAD RUSSIA supports BAD ASSAD and causes all this ‘refugee’ crisis, and BAD TRUMP THE NEO-NAZI won’t take ‘refugees’ like the US didn’t take Jewish refugees during WWII. But this is, of course, selective reading of events. It ignores the fact that much of the Middle East and North Africa, MENA, are up in flames because of Jewish-controlled US foreign policy that was instrumental in messing up Iraq, Libya, and Syria. With Syria and Yemen, US used its proxies. And it overlooks the fact that the main architect of the Afghan plan began under the Carter administration.

    Democrat elites wanna push the narrative of the US as the good guy who takes refugees from evil Assad, but as Tulsi Gabbard said — and she is no bimbo like Hanoi Jane — , it is the US that has been aiding the moral equivalents of the Khmer Rouge in Syria. Gabbard blows up the narrative that American Jews are compassionate friends of the Muslims. She reports that US foreign policy is the cause for the mess in the region. She doesn’t name the Jewish Power, but anyone who connects the dots will come to that conclusion.

    We have to be careful when we say ‘liberals’ because there is a huge difference in interest and emphasis between Jewish Democratic elites and the increasing non-white rabble of the Democratic Party. And there are differences even among the rabble(and even among the elites, as rising numbers of non-whites in Democratic elite ranks don’t much sympathize with Jews). Blacks and Mexicans don’t give a crap about Russia, and they don’t give a damn about Muslim world. Mexicans want more immigration and amnesty, but blacks aren’t too keen about that. Arab-Americans are pissed at Jews, and Muslim Americans find feminism to be degenerate.

    But the Party is still largely funded and run by Jewish elites. They don’t know how to keep the rabble together, especially as Black Lives Mattered into a mess. Also, the homo issue sort of fizzled cuz Trump went along with it(though without enthusiasm) and promised to protect homos and trannies from Muslims. We have no idea what the Pussy March was supposed to be about.
    So, Jews figure the only issue that might hold everyone together is RUSSIA IS THE NEW BIG BAD WOLF THAT PUT TRUMP IN THE WHITE HOUSE. Jews fear Russia more than anything. It’s no longer the Cold War fear. During the Cold War, there was the dread of communism with Russia as its main sponsor. But such fear is history. USSR is long gone, and Russia is just a regional power, not even a great one at that.

    So, why all the fear? Why all the hysteria? It’s because the Russian example is threatening to Jewish globalist elite rule. Jews associate ‘nationalism’ with politics for the gentile majority at the expense of Jewish supremacist domination. Jews are now so addicted to total supremacist rule in the US that anything less seems like the holocaust. Not holocaust of Jews but holocaust of Jewish supremacism. After all, Jews are free to make money and get ahead in Russia and Hungary and Poland. So, why all the fuss? Putin isn’t anti-Jewish. It’s because their respective nationalisms will not totally surrender to Jewish demands. In the US, Jews have been getting everything their way. Even a man as blunt and crude as Netanyahu got to step all over Obama who remained mute during Gaza massacre and showered Israel with billions more even as Israeli politicians were spitting at him.
    When people become accustomed, addicted, to total power, anything less seems like ‘injustice’. It’s like King mentality. For a king, a good life isn’t enough. Everyone must obey him. And this became the Jewish template in the US, and Jews hate ANY threat to the globalist order where gentiles say “your wish is my command”.

    In a way, there is a consistency between Old Liberalism and New Liberalism IF we look at the Jewish element. Jewish anti-war stance in the past and Jewish pro-war stance in the present may seem like opposites on the outside BUT they have the same logic since both are predicated on ‘Is it good for the Jews?’
    In the past, anti-communism was associated with the American Right dominated by Wasps. So, naturally, Jews were either pro-communist, communist-sympathizing, or anti-anti-communist. Jews figured communism had no chance of taking over the US. So, the bigger threat to Jewish power was Wasp Right using the specter of communism to justify their power(like the Nazis did). So, being opposed to the Cold War was good for Jews.
    Today, Russia’s example inspires the path to political independence from Jewish globalist control and nationalism. Jews find it threatening, so they cook up the New Cold War. Again, it’s good for the Jews.

    It’s like the story RASHOMON by Akutagawa. Ostensibly, three people tell three different stories. The bandit says he killed the samurai in a fair duel. The wife says she killed her husband who reproached her for being raped. The samurai, through a medium, says he killed himself because he was wronged by both bandit and wife.

    And yet, at the psychological level, they are all telling the same tale driven by ego and pride. The bandit admits he is the killer but proudly says he fought a fair duel and won like a man. The woman says she was raped and victimized by the bandit, but her husband blamed her. So, she was victimized by her husband too, and so she killed her husband because she couldn’t take the blame and humiliation. She defends her dignity.
    And the husband says that after the bandit raped his wife, she asked the bandit to kill the husband so that they could run off together. So, he is the victim of both the bandit who raped his wife and of the wife who betrayed him. He makes himself the object of sympathy.
    So, in a way, they are all telling the same tale.

    Same with Jewish Zionists and Jewish Globalists. Same with Jewish anti-war Liberals and Jewish pro-war globalists. They seem to stand for different things, but if we look at the source of their logic, it all comes down to “Is it good for the Jews?”

    On the surface, what Jews want for Israel and what Jews want for EU/US seem like opposites. Jews are pro-borders & pro-nationalism in Israel and anti-borders & anti-nationalism in gentile lands. Hypocrisy? On the surface, yes. But there is consistency in their inner logic since both are predicated on “Is it good for the Jews?” It’s good for Jews to have nationalism in a Jewish-majority nation, and it’s good for Jews to weaken nationalism in gentile lands because gentile nationalism is a barrier to total Jewish domination.

    • Agree: Z-man, Miro23
  21. CIA is very clever to use Liberals fear of Trump to enlist them in the CIA agenda toward more never-ending wars for more suffering, death, and destruction.

  22. Z-man says:

    It’s hilarious how the ‘Neolibs’ have taken on the Neocon talking points on all the ‘talking head’ shows on cable ‘news’. It’s the conspiracy of the few. ‘God save our leader’ Trump!

  23. @Ted Bell

    Thanks, I’ll watch the videos later. Still, being a team player is one thing, but changing one’s creed from anti-war, anti-imperialism, anti-establishment – from, as they used to call themselves, ‘reality-based community’ – to exactly the opposite? And just like that, at a drop of a hat? And with such a seemingly genuine passion, with no sign whatsoever of a cognitive dissonance?

    I dunno, to me it certainly indicates some serious mental deficiency. Zombification. Some bizarre cult-like shit, perhaps.

  24. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Who are these “leftists” you speak of who support Israel?

  25. @Anon

    I have to disagree with you about this:
    “Russia is just a regional power, not even a great one at that. ”
    It is plainly not true. Russia is a truly great power and is not exactly regional or her region is very large. Check the map. Russia is basically the only power which can utterly destroy USA both conventionally and in nuclear conflict. One cannot call this kind of power regional the way you implied. You unfortunately follow exactly those people opinion whom you despise.

    But I see more than a grain of truth when you described American Jewish elites.
    No wonder neo-con leadership that has been running USA for some 20+ years is being called cabal even by no anti-semits.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
    , @Dan Hayes
  26. @Ted Bell

    Good vids.

    How the Russians specifically were chosen as the current enemy is probably just habit.

    Instead of correcting our own faults, it’s always convenient to point fingers at others.

    As far as choosing the Ruskies as the enemy du jour, when it’s opportune, as you know, the usual suspects will flip flop in a heartbeat.

    It was amazing how the Soviets were the enemy, then they weren’t then they were. No one even blushed or skipped a beat at the flip flopping even when the Soviets allied with the Nazis.

    “And all those changes in the newspaper headlines with regards to Nazis — once the meetings of our friendly sentries in this shabby Poland, and waves of sympathy for those brave soldiers, who fight against the Anglo-French bankers, and Hitler’s uncut speeches over whole pages of Pravda; and then suddenly one morning the explosion of headlines, claiming the whole Europe is moaning heart-breakingly under their heel.”

    Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago Part V, Ch.1

    And the Left intelligentsia made their swing-over from ‘War is hell’ to ‘War is glorious’ not only with no sense of incongruity but almost without any intervening stage.

    George Orwell, LOOKING BACK ON THE SPANISH WAR (1942)

  27. anon • Disclaimer says:
    @joe webb

    The tradition of requiring witnesses to swear an honesty oath likely traces back to Roman times. Urban legend contends that male Romans had to squeeze their testicles while vowing to tell the truth, which is why the Latin word for witness is testis. Latin scholars have debunked this colorful claim, pointing out that testis more likely comes from the Ancient Greek for “three”—a witness being a third observer of events.
    Still, the orator Cicero alluded to the importance of legally binding oaths in De Officiis, and the Law of the Twelve Tables, the earliest of codification of Roman law, stresses that perjurers “shall be hurled down from the Tarpeian Rock.”

    The word “oath,” however, comes not from Latin, but rather Anglo-Saxon. The Anglo-Saxons used oaths not only to swear fealty to feudal lords, but also to ensure honesty during legal proceedings and transactions.
    When the Anglo-Saxon king Athelstan codified Britain’s laws around A.D. 930, he included a section requiring that the sale of chattel be witnessed by a neutral third party, who would take an oath to act truthfully and in the law’s best interest.
    The phrase “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” is believed to have initially been coined in Old English, and to have become a staple of English trials by approximately the 13th century.

  28. MarkinLA says:

    The really funny aspect of “the intelligence community” telling us about the Russian hacking is that doing this breaks all the rules normally applied to important state secrets. This is why I am calling BS on the whole affair.

    When I worked on a secret project we weren’t allowed to as much as mention the name of the project outside of our work area. We weren’t even allowed to acknowledge that such projects existed. Even mentioning some seemingly innocuous aspect of the project would be considered a violation that might be useful to a foreign agency looking for information.

    We are supposed to believe that giving away your secret knowledge that you are tracking Russian hackers is allowable but not giving away any clues about how you are doing it so as to protect this valuable information is vitally important. What total BS. The most important fact of all is that you are capable of tracking them. Now they know they need to find other methods. Why not just make up some phony story about how you are tracking them. This is what you would normally do – create an alternate story about how you got the information so the real secret stays secret.

    • Replies: @jacques sheete
  29. @MarkinLA

    I just finished reading Stevenson’s “Intrepid” and I think he would’ve agreed with you. The levels of secrecy are astonishing. We on the outside have no idea about what’s really going on. All we can do is try to make sense of it all after the fact.

    The big thing I’ve learned is that the neither the media nor any public figure should never be taken at face value.

  30. @Ted Bell

    How the Russians specifically were chosen as the current enemy is probably just habit.

    Yes, but I think there maybe another reason too. There’s been several ‘Hitlers’ over the post-cold-war years: Saddam Hussein, Osama bin Laden, colonel Qaddafi. But they get eliminated, and then every time the establishment needs a new ‘Emmanuel Goldstein’ figure, for the rubes to hate and fear. Designating a new Hitler and running a new demonization campaign every few years is inefficient, and kinda lame. Putin is a better choice, as he doesn’t seem to be going anywhere anytime soon. A good, reliable boogieman.

  31. @Sergey Krieger

    Russia is a truly great power and is not exactly regional or her region is very large.

    All due respect, but Russia definitely isn’t a global power. Unlike the USSR, Russia doesn’t have the economic economic strength to pursue its interests and project power too far from its borders. China – yes. It’s active in Africa, it’s planning to build a new canal in central America. Russia? It would need to at least quadruple its GDP (it’s 1/10th of China’s), and especially its industrial GDP.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  32. No one has done more to undermine the legitimacy of the “liberal democratic order” than supporters of liberalism and democracy themselves.

  33. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    to pursue its interests and project power too far from its borders. China – yes.

    China can project power? First time I hear this. Developing economic interests in Africa is not the ability to “project power”. At this stage, China’s military is only learning how to operate tools of power projections, including its main one–military.

    It would need to at least quadruple its GDP (it’s 1/10th of China’s)

    And why not “sextuple” or “octuple”? Where did you get your numbers from? Russia’s real GDP is about 20-25% that of China and yet, Russia builds already TU-160M2 and T-50 is full IOC this year, among many. China is not even in the same universe here and, if you didn’t know, strategic aviation and the arsenal of long range high precision weapons is one of the tools of projection of power. China lacks this capability and expertise and is not going to have it any time soon. This is just a single example of the criteria by which power is assessed–a number of enclosed technological cycles. Russia can produce full spectrum of very advanced weapons from firearms to strategic missile submarines and advanced air force. From extraction of the raw materials, to R&D and processing, to a completed advanced product. China can produce bulk, but she still cannot produce good (forget advanced) jet engine, her submarine (especially nuclear) fleet is, frankly, a joke and if you don’t believe me–take a look at the photo of “Chinese” COMAC which now has three letters “UAC” added on its fuselage. Guess from three times why did this happen? Also ask yourself a question why China is so desperate for SU-35? And then, apart from industrial capability, comes this teeny-weeny operational aspect of things. Yes, China is an economic giant, secured in its continental position, but it will be a long time before China realistically will be able to project power.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
  34. @Andrei Martyanov

    I guess we have different understanding of what “projecting power” means. Military hardware is one component, but I’m not sure it’s necessarily all that important in this day and age, considering the supremacy of nuclear weapons. Economic and financial powers are far more important, imo. For example, Germany is the most powerful actor in the European context, and yet it has no militarily force to speak of. France probably has twice more hardware.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  35. annamaria says:
    @Debbie Menon

    “Iraq, Libya and Syria had nothing to do with 9/11. There were no terrorists in these countries before the U.S. decided to change the regimes in these secular countries.”

    Again, what the “pink pussies” (led by the soft-porn-profiteer Madonna and senescent Steinem) have been demonstrating about? Human rights and, separately, women’s rights? Then demonstrating ladies have a serious cognitive deficits that manifests in their total neglect of the women and children slaughtered on orders of their beloved Obama-Clinton team. These young victims count in hundreds of thousands. But it is so passé to talk about the ongoing 7 wars in the fashionable circles of DC and New York City; let’s chirp and chirp about some “human rights” and some “misogyny” (but only when related to a particular person), but never mention the obscenity of the US for-profit health care and that the Democrats had been in power for eight long years and doubled the national debt to almost \$20 trillions; during that time, the Democrats fought against the universal care and for securing profits for their VIP (donors) from insurance and Pharma corporations. Add to that the Dems eager support of the “human rights” of the Wall Street criminals and CIA torturers. How about the human rights of the American children and their moms? How about the universal care that almost 90% of the US citizenry had demanded when the peace laureate assume the most powerful post in the US? The government was under control of Democrats and yet the Dems government did nothing for the citizenry at large and everything for the oligarchy.
    Who needs an adversary when there is a plentiful of idiots among the “progressive” kind that has suddenly discovered the absolute trustfulness of the CIA and the absolute trustworthiness of the Kagans-clan-connected ideologues around Clinton?

  36. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    For example, Germany is the most powerful actor in the European context

    Germany is a declining nation on the verge of a serious “transformation”. GDP itself, while very important metric, does not translate directly into the military capability. Especially the way GDP is calculated by most “Western” economic institutions. Militarily Germany is a midget, both by choice and by limitations imposed on her by US, which clearly testifies to Germany’s lack of any historic subjectivity. It is still, in effect, an occupied country with political “elites” most of whom qualify for being the exhibit items in the museum of mental curiosities. You chose not a very good example.

    I guess we have different understanding of what “projecting power” means

    Yes we do. Projection of power is primarily a military category.

    • Replies: @Mao Cheng Ji
  37. Dan Hayes says:
    @Sergey Krieger

    Sergey Krieger:

    Putin has publicly stated that there is only one superpower in the world and that it is the United States!

  38. @Andrei Martyanov

    GDP itself, while very important metric, does not translate directly into the military capability.

    Exactly. If I have a nuclear deterrent, and I can pressure and even destroy my opponents (and reward my allies) using my economic and financial power, why would I waste my resources building useless tanks and fighter jets? That would be the ‘generals are always fighting the previous war’ thing.

    Back in 1942-43 Germany was rounding up young Polaks, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians, and shipping them west in cattle wagons to slave in German homes and construction sites. Fast forward 70 years: young Polaks, Lithuanians, and Ukrainians come voluntarily, en masse, and they pay for their train tickets themselves. And their governments don’t fight back, they collaborate.

    • Replies: @Andrei Martyanov
  39. Andrei Martyanov [AKA "SmoothieX12"] says: • Website
    @Mao Cheng Ji

    That would be the ‘generals are always fighting the previous war’ thing.

    No, this would be merely beaten to death cliche. You also, evidently, have a somewhat peculiar view of nuclear deterrent, emphasis on “deterrent”.

  40. annamaria says:

    The untouchable, adorable Saudi Arabia
    “Trump just banned entry to migrants from a list of “terrorist” countries that had been concocted by the Obama administration. Missing from that list is terrorist country number one: Saudi Arabia.
    The Saudis and their Gulf co-conspirators … have provided billions in material support for Muslims worldwide willing to take extremist action in accordance with Salafi/Takfiri principles… So next time you hear that Boko Haram or the Taliban or Abu Sayyaf or ISIL or some other Al Qaeda type organization has perpetrated some atrocity in the name of Islam… be sure to thank the Saudis!
    The US, along with some its major allies, plays along with this travesty for several reasons. Most prominently, billions of Petrodollars recycled through their economies provide them with an exorbitant economic advantage. Secondly, they enjoy the ability to use crazy Jihadis against their enemies du jour. Want to push Russia out of Afghanistan? Send in the Jihadis. Want to topple Assad? Send in the Jihadis. Need to overthrow Gaddafi? Send in the Jihadis. Need to keep Somalia from developing its 100 billion barrels of oil and bringing down the price of oil to levels that would make US fracking uneconomical? Send in the (Ash-Shabab) Jihadis. Need to prevent Russian oil reaching the Caspian via Chechnya and Daghestan? Well you get the idea.”
    In short, “9/11”!!! and “support the troops”!!!

  41. @Anon

    This is an excellent comment. A nitpick: you should mention the historical context of Jews in Russia, who have harbored resentment over the Czarist ending of the privileges afforded Jews by the Polish nobility after the partitions of Poland (which brought many Jews under Russian rule for the first time), through recent events, e.g. Putin moving against the parasitical oligarchs, who were disproportionately Jewish.

Current Commenter

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 have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Stephen J. Sniegoski Comments via RSS