Décryptage de la guerre en Ukraine

636px-DPR_LPR_en

Ce qui suit a été publié sur Twitter par le journaliste de la Stalker Zone, Ollie Richardson (@O_Rich_). Les commentaires entre […] sont les miens.

Je vois encore souvent la Russie critiquée, pour n’être pas intervenue lors des évènements, en Ukraine, il y a quatre ans. Cette critique suit toujours la même forme, sans que soit proposée une alternative, ou si une alternative est proposée, d’une naïveté incroyable.

Le problème principal: ces critiques supposent un scénario non-existant, où l’Ukraine serait la seule source de conflit géopolitique. Bien sûr, si l’Ukraine était la seule source de conflit, une solution serait beaucoup plus facile à identifier. Mais la réalité est différente.

Le second problème est l’ignorance du fait que les évènements de 2014 en Ukraine ont été la culmination de cent ans d’histoire. En fait, il est légitime d’affirmer, en gros, que tout ce désastre était déjà prévisible du temps de la République Populaire Ukrainienne.

Le troisième problème est de croire que les évènements se suivent en série, plutôt que de se produire en parallèle, c’est à dire qu’au départ d’un évènement dans un pays, il s’en suit que les évènements en cours dans d’autres pays s’arrêtent, temporairement ou indéfiniment. Il y a suffisamment d’explications scientifiques qui montrent que cette hypothèse est erronée.

Le quatrième problème est le manque de compréhension, en général, que la Russie d’aujourd’hui est construite sur les fondations de l’URSS. Prétendre séparer les deux périodes, comme si elles n’étaient pas connectées, contribue à une approche à la fois idéaliste et mentalement étriquée.

Pour en arriver maintenant au coeur du sujet: en 2014, les USA lâchent sur l’Ukraine quelque chose qui avait déjà forme et énergie. Les idées anti-soviétiques avaient déjà été promues dans les années 90, grace à Gorbachev et Yeltsin. Cette base était alors établit.

Dans les années 90, dans l’ouest de l’ Ukraine, vous pouviez déjà être attaqué pour porter un ruban de Saint-George. Bien sûr c’était encore bien différent de ce qui se passe aujourd’hui, quand vous pouvez être légalement abattu pour la même raison, mais les symptômes étaient identiques.

Au même moment le gouvernement ukrainien se dirigeait vers une politique multi-vectorielle, pour être à la fois pro-US et pro-Russe. C’est Kuchma qui développa cette approche, qui mit le pays sur la route des évènements de 2013/2014. Dès 2013 les US avaient déjà établit leur réseau de NGOs [en Ukraine].

La formation de ce réseau avait en fait commencé pendant la 2e guerre mondiale, avec comme stade précurseur la formation de l’ UPA/OUN [organisations nationalistes]. Il est vital de comprendre que les US avaient déjà une main-mise solide sur l’ouest de l’Ukraine, bien avant l’effondrement de l’URSS.

La tâche était toujours d’injecter [le même procédé: création de “NGOs” et préparation d’un soulèvement armé] en Russie. Yeltsin fit de son mieux pour dépecer le pays, mais le KGB finit par identifier les principaux points chauds du complot US, et agit à temps pour neutraliser les menaces les plus dangereuses (Putin y fut engagé.)

Donc pour la CIA c’était le retour au départ, puisque ni l’Afghanistan, ni Grozny, ni la Géorgie, ni les “révolutions multi-couleurs” en Lettonie/Biélorussie/Arménie n’avaient réussit, et le moment était donc venu de jouer la carte de l’Ukraine. Le réseau NGO attira la Galicie [partie de l’Ukraine historiquement et politiquement hostile à la Russie] vers Kiev, et le reste est déjà de l’histoire. Et c’est exactement au moment de la fuite de Yanukovych et de la césure des élites, que la Russie aurait du intervenir, à croire ses détracteurs. Il y avait un autre problème: le réseau US NGO [dans ce cas les organisations soi-disantes d’opposition au gouvernement syrien, et, en fait, les terroristes] était sur le point de prendre Damas.

Ainsi, en 2014, la Russie est attaquée dans deux directions, la Syrie et l’Ukraine. A en croire ses détracteurs, la Russie aurait du envahir l’Ukraine et repousser la junte. Ceci avant le commencement de l’ATO [l’opération “anti-terroriste” déclenchée par la junte contre le Donbass.] Imaginons que la Russie envoie ne serait-ce qu’un char de l’autre coté de la frontière…

Où cela aurait laissé la Russie en ce qui concerne le droit international? Qu’est-ce que Moscou pourrait espérer, alors que l’histoire montre que démarrer une guerre est facile, mais la terminer est très, très difficile? La Russie doit-elle commencer à tuer ses fils, car les Ukrainiens sont en fait des Russes?

C’est précisément là que la logique fallacieuse des détracteurs est apparente. Les US sont en Ukraine pour une seule raison: pour attirer la Russie, et, en attendant, pour le pillage. Les US veulent à tout prix que la Russie tue des Ukrainiens, n’importe quel Ukrainien.

Les US veulent cela au point d’aider à provoquer la Russie pour qu’elle franchisse la frontière: l’ATO. Ils veulent que Moscou détruise la nation Russe de ses propres mains. Il n’y aurait pas de victimes américaines, le complex militaro-industriel y aurait bon compte, il suffirait d’un seul crime de guerre de la part de Putin.

Et alors, que cela fait non seulement de Putin, mais de la Russie dans son ensemble? Après tout, si la Russie envoie ses chars en Ukraine en 2014, le seul résultat serait du sang, et encore plus de sang. La Russie commettrait des crimes de guerre hideux, et le tribunal de La Haye préparerait le dossier.

Vous vous rappelez de la Yougoslavie, comment Milosevitch fut attiré dans le conflit, et comment cela s’est terminé. Les détracteurs ont-ils appris quoi que ce soit? Ainsi, Putin, qui sait exactement ce que les US veulent, utilise leur énergie à ses fins propres: les accords de Minsk.

Maintenant l’UE et les US sont tenus par la decision du Conseil de Sécurité, et ne peuvent pas fuir et laisser tomber l’Ukraine comme un jouet dont on ne veut plus. Ils ont à faire face à ce Frankenstein nazi qu’ils ont créé, tout en savant très bien qu’il est empoisonné. En même temps que Minsk, Putin fait autre chose.

En 2011 la Russie savait qu’intervenir en Libye aurait résulté en échec. Le Ministère de la Défense et leurs ordinateurs ont conclue: attendez, et frapper les US en Syrie.

Cela s’est traduit par un succès à 100%. Pourquoi? Parce que la Russie a été invitée en Syrie par son gouvernement. Et cela est une chose que les US ne peuvent pas changer. Et en un clin d’oeil le “couteau de l’armée suisse” fut déployé (S-400, Sukhoi, Pantsir S1, Tupolev etc.)

Rappelons que ceci a lieu au même moment où la Russie supporte le DPR/LPR [les républiques du Donbass] au mieux de ses possibilités, sans être attirée en Ukraine par les US. Autrement dit, la Russie frappe les US au coeur en Syrie, et immobilise le front parallèle en Ukraine.

Je ne mentionnerai pas Strelkov [volontaire Russe au Donbass, commandant les forces anti-Kiev à Slaviansk, au début de l’ATO], mais ce n’est pas une coïncidence que le Département d’État aime faire se louanges, et que ses patrons aime visiter la capitale [?] de la cinquième colonne en Russie. Ses actions heureusement échouèrent à attirer la Russie en Ukraine.

La Russie doit-elle être condamnée pour les cent mille victimes de la guerre du Donbass? Non, parce que si elle était intervenue de la manière voulue par ses détracteurs, ce nombre serait probablement autour d’un million, ou plus. Obama réussit à faire ce que nul autre président n’avait pu faire:

Enfoncer une cale dans la nation Russe, qui continue à saigner jusqu’à ce jour. Des Russes tuent des Russes au Donbass, partout en Ukraine, tous les jours. Chaque mort des forces armées  ukrainiennes ou des milices du Donbass, est une victoire pour les US.

Mais pour la Russie envoyer ses blindés à Kiev n’est pas la solution, parce que la Russie se comporterait alors comme les US (Iraq, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Japon etc.) raisonnant avec ses poings. Ce n’est pas la méthode Russe, comme l’armée rouge l’a si bien démontré.

On dit en sport que l’offensive gagne les matchs, mais la défensive gagne les tournois. Dans ce cas, S-400 plus les accords de Minsk conduiront à la victoire. Kiev respectent-ils les accords de Minsk? Non. Était-ce l’intention des signataires qu’il en soit autrement? Non.

Merkel, Hollande, Putin et Poroshenko, tous savaient qu’il n’y aurait pas de cessez le feu. En réalité, le but de ce document était de ralentir l’escalation, parce que l’Ouest avait besoin que les évènements de Syrie rattrapent ceux de l’Ukraine pour compenser la perte de Debaltsevo/Ilovaisk [défaite de l’armée ukrainienne au moment des négociations de Minsk]

La triste réalité est que l’Ukraine avait [tot ou tard] à faire face aux actions des UPA/OUN dans les années 40, à Volyn et Babi Yar [massacres de juifs et de partisans.] Il lui appartenait de résoudre ce problème, et les US pointaient cette bombe à retardement dans la direction de Moscou. Seuls les Ukrainiens eux-mêmes peuvent résoudre le dilemme.

Et c’est pourquoi les US investissent autant dans les media ukrainiens et les NGOs, pour empêcher la solution ukrainienne du problème, et empêcher le changement de la trajectoire centenaire et suicidaire vers la destruction commencée par les Petliura et Skoropadsky [politiciens ukrainiens au temps de la révolution russe]

Le temps démontrera que l’immobilisation du front ukrainien par la Russie, sa neutralisation comme arme des US, l’encouragement aux élites et bandéristes à s’entre dévorer, était le seule solution pour pouvoir sauver la nation Russe.

C’est pourquoi Putin insiste sur l’unité de l’Ukraine, avec les républiques du LPR/DNR continuant de faire partie de la structure interne de l’Ukraine sous un statut spécial: les NGO US et les bandéristes ne doivent pas avoir droit d’entrée dans la Fédération de Russie, et Moscou doit prouver à l’Ouest comment fonctionne le Droit International.

Lorsque les critiques de Moscou se font de nouveau entendre, puisque, apparemment, bombarder Kiev ou quelque sorte d’intervention doit arriver, la question s’impose: pouvez vous proposer une autre solution compatible avec les réalités des Relations Internationales à notre époque?

La réponse est d’habitude bal-bla-bla. Deux règles d’or: si vous n’êtes pas capable de faire un meilleur travail, fermez la! Si vous n’êtes pas engagés dans ce jeu, 2+2 devient soudainement 5.

Traduction française: Honoré Dupuis, qui porte la responsabilité pour toute erreur d’interprétation.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Deciphering the war in the #Ukraine, via @O_Rich_

 

A magisterial analysis of events by Ollie Richardson, writer at the      stalkerzone.org   

(*) UNR: Ukrainian National Republic

 

Le fascisme contre les huit heures

tellement actuel!

Le ciel de Leyenda

otto-griebelC’est une attaque généralisée qui se dessine dans le monde contre les réglementations du travail conquises pendant la guerre.

L’année 1919 avait été une année décisive pour les classes ouvrières. C’était le moment où les mineurs anglais obtenaient les 7 heures, où les salariés de France et de partout s’assuraient les 8 heures qui, depuis 1889, n’avaient pas cessé d’être l’objet d’une
propagande soutenue.

A la vérité, depuis lors, et surtout à l’abri de la crise économique de 1921-1922, la grande industrie s’était efforcé de ressaisir le terrain perdu. Mais dans aucune contrée, jusqu’ici, on n’avait songé à revenir expressément sur la législation établie. Il a fallu que les conservateurs se sentissent bien assis au pouvoir, outre-Manche, pour qu’ils osassent restaurer l’ancienne durée du labeur dans les mines.

Ils ont été dépassés par Mussolini. Le dictateur italien, usant de la procédure des décrets qui lui est chère, a supprimé la journée de 8 heures, au mépris des engagements internationaux. Mais il ne…

View original post 114 more words

People Ignore Facts That Contradict Their False Beliefs

By Eric Zuesse, for the Strategic Culture Foundation, 23.09.2017

or-39670

 

The more people there are who ignore facts that contradict their beliefs, the likelier a dictatorship will emerge within a given country. Here is how aristocracies, throughout the Ages, have controlled the masses, by taking advantage of this widespread tendency people have, to ignore contrary facts:

What social scientists call “confirmation bias” and have repeatedly found to be rampant,* is causing the public to be easily manipulated, and has thus destroyed democracy by replacing news-reporting, by propaganda — ‘news’ that’s false — in a culture where lies which pump the agendas of the powerful (including lies pumped by the billionaire owners of top ‘news’media and of the media they own) are almost never punished (and are often not even denied to be true). Thus, lies by those powerful liars almost always succeed at enslaving the minds of the millions, to believe what the top economic-and-power class want those millions of people to believe — no matter how false it might happen actually to be.

Recently, a particularly stark example of this came to my attention. On 15 September 2017, an article that I wrote for the Strategic Culture Foundation, and which was titled by a true statement that I had only recently discovered to be true, was republished at a news-site that I consider one of the best around, “Signs of the Times” or “SOTT” for short, and a reader-comment there, simply rejected that title-statement and the entire article, because it contradicted what the person believes. This commenter entirely ignored the evidence that I had provided in the article, which proved the statement to be true.

No matter how irrefutable the evidence is, most people reject anything which contradicts their deeply entrenched false beliefs, and this reader-comment crystallized for me, this phenomenon of “confirmation bias” — the phenomenon of ignoring evidence that contradicts what one believes.

The article was titled “Liberalism doesn’t respect a nation’s sovereignty.” I never knew that fact until I researched it, but I found, after looking through (and my article quoting key documents from) the history of the matter, that it’s actually the case: that liberalism (as it’s understood and defined by the scholars of the subject, and as it’s based upon the key formative documents of the historical tradition, “liberalism”) rejects a nation’s sovereignty. This fact shocked me to discover; so, I wrote an article documenting it, and SCF accepted it, and it then became republished at a few other sites, including SOTT.

The reader-comment at SOTT which for me personified confirmation-bias, was (in its entirety): “This is a rather new twist blaming liberals for invading countries. I’ve always associated liberalism with the left wing and democratic, progressive politics. I’ve always associated conservatism with the right wing, big business, militarism and invading other countries. Trying to move the goal posts, are we?”

That person never clicked onto my article’s links documenting the case, nor even read the quotations given in the article itself from John Locke and from Adam Smith, who were key founders of “liberalism” as that tradition has come down to us. He instead ignored all of that evidence, and stated — entirely without evidence of any sort — that I (and SOTT, and SCF, for publishing it) were “Trying to move the goal posts.”

I (a Bernie Sanders voter, and a lifelong progressive and opponent of conservatism) am “Trying to move the goal posts” — how? By pointing out the manufactured phoniness of ‘liberalism’? By pointing out a key way in which liberalism was designed by its aristocratic sponsors (in this case by the aristocrats who sponsored Locke and Smith), to be an ideology that would encourage conquest, empire, and discourage democracy (which is based upon the sanctity of national sovereignty — based upon the lack of imposition of government by or on behalf of anyone who isn’t a resident on the land). Liberalism, I show there, was designed for Empire, not for democracy. That reader simply refused to consider the evidence.

People who insist upon deceiving themselves disgust me. Anyone who blocks out the key relevant facts and persists in believing the lies they were raised with, or became fooled into believing, doesn’t harm only themselves by the lies they believe; they vote on the basis of the lies they believe, and thus these people who refuse to be open-minded destroy democracy, and invite control of the nation by the aristocracy (who sponsor the proponents of those lies). People who refuse to question their own beliefs, become increasingly putrid pools of their own false beliefs, which have been created and nurtured and sustained and become larger and larger pools of lies, by constant repetition from the media and lobbyists of the rich and powerful, so as to enable the exploiters to enslave the masses, via those constantly repeated and embellished lies.

Such self-‘justifying’ fools, who refuse to clean-up their conceptual pool that’s been increasingly polluted by lies, are enemies of democracy, no matter how much they may consider themselves to be ‘liberals’. They don’t even know the reality of what liberalism is. One thing that it definitely is not (as my article documented) is progressivism (which is utterly opposed to foreign conquest and to the entire imperial project of imposed rule, regardless whether by outright invasions or else by coups).

Thus, we have two dominant ideologies against progressivism: One is conservatism, which everyone recognizes to be against progressivism and for Empire and constant conquest, profitable war for the arms-merchants and for the ‘news’media owners who also benefit from stirring up invasion-fever, not only like William Randolph Hearst did but today like they all do. The other is liberalism, which hides that it’s actually conservative — hides this, by being ever-so-sweet toward certain ethnicities or other groups that are being oppressed domestically, and by vociferously condemning conservatives for what is actually nothing more than the blatancy of conservatism’s favoritism toward the aristocracy.

An authentic democracy cannot be based upon a “demos” (a public) that is overwhelmingly composed of suckers — manipulated fools. Only by means of the tiny aristocracy plus the huge mass of their suckers, does a democracy degenerate into a fascism. (For example, something like this can be supported overwhelmingly by the political Party that dominates the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House, state capitals, state legislatures, and runs the U.S. White House, in this ‘democratic’ nation — ‘democratic’ according to the propaganda; but if this were really a democracy, then none of those politicians would be able to win public office.)

* A well-established central finding of psychological research, concerning “confirmation bias” or “motivated reasoning” (which are two phrases referring to people’s tendency to believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of any contrary facts), is that individuals evaluate whatever they read or hear according to their pre-existing ideas about the given subject. Specifically, psychologists have found that people tend to pay attention to whatever confirms their existing ideas, and tend to ignore whatever contradicts those pre-established beliefs.

For examples, the following studies are available online:

“Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs,” in the July 2006 American Journal of Political Science, reported: “We find a confirmation bias – the seeking out of confirmatory evidence – when [people] are free to self-select the source of arguments they read. Both the confirmation and disconfirmation biases lead to attitude polarization … especially among those with the strongest priors [prior beliefs] and highest level of political sophistication [the highest degree of exposure to, and involvement in, the given subject-matter that the study was dealing with].” Prejudices were stronger among supposed experts than among non-“experts”: The more indoctrinated a person was, the more prejudiced. “People actively denigrate the information with which they disagree, while accepting compatible information almost at face value.” Moreover, “Those with weak and uninformed attitudes show less bias” (and this is actually one reason why the best jurors at trials are generally people who are not personally or professionally involved in any aspect of the given case – they are “non-experts”).

Sharon Begley’s article in the 25 August 2009 Newsweek titled “Lies of Mass Destruction: The same skewed thinking that supports a Saddam-9/11 link explains the power of health-care myths [such as that Obama’s health plan had ‘death panels’]” summarized the study in the May 2009 Sociological Inquiry, “‘There Must Be a Reason’: Osama, Saddam, and Inferred Justification,” which had surveyed, during October 2004, 49 conservative Republicans who admitted they believed that Saddam Hussein had caused the 9/11 attacks. This study found that 48 of these 49 extreme conservatives were utterly impervious to the overwhelming factual evidence which was provided to them by the presenters that contradicted this false belief they held.

A study concerning not political conservatism but merely resistance to new technologies is James N. Druckman’s “Framing, Motivated Reasoning, and Opinions about Emergent Technologies,” which was presented at a technological conference in 2009. He reported that, “factual information … is perceived in biased ways … (e.g., there is motivated reasoning).” “Facts have limited impact on initial opinions.” Moreover, “Individuals do not privilege the facts. … Individuals process new factual information in a biased manner. … Specifically, they view information consistent with their prior opinions as relatively stronger, and they view neutral facts as consistent with their existing” views.

“Motivated Reasoning With Stereotypes,” in the January 1999 Psychological Inquiry, found that, “When an applicable stereotype supports their desired impression of an individual, motivation can lead people to activate this stereotype, if they have not already activated it. … People pick and choose among the many stereotypes applicable to an individual, activating those that support their desired impression of this individual and inhibiting those that interfere with it.” Similarly, another research report, “The Undeserving Rich: ‘Moral Values’ and the White Working Class,” in the June 2009 Sociological Forum, found that John Kerry had probably lost the 2004 U.S. Presidential election to George W. Bush at least partly because white working class voters overwhelmingly believed that Bush was like themselves because he behaved like themselves, and that Kerry was not like themselves because his manner seemed “snooty.”

G A Zyuganov: “Their Cow Can Moo, But Yours Must Be Silent”

Those who ignore history are bound to repeat the same mistakes…

Voices from Russia

________________________

On 7 November 2017, the administration of the US President issued a statement with the lurid title “National Day of Victims of Communism”. However, it was unclear whether the “national day” was American or Russian. Nevertheless, it was very significant that the White House couldn’t ignore the 100th anniversary of the Great October Socialist Revolution, which the entire planet observed over the past few days. At the same time, it seems that American politicians still have a weak knowledge of history and geography. In Washington, they live in an artificial world, in which America represents everything good, and Russia is the embodiment of evil.

Outrageous unsubstantiated allegations and outright lies fill this document. Full of the baleful spirit of the Cold War, the White House talked about “the dark decades of oppressive communism, a political philosophy incompatible with freedom, prosperity, and respect for human life”. Meanwhile, even Russia’s enemies recognise that the seven decades…

View original post 599 more words

After the wet Summer, a hot Winter?

kw39_abgeordnete_19_wp_bild

 

It has not been a good Summer over here, with many trips we did not wish for, and few moments of inspiration on the writing front. And those news… Seeing clearly through the  mass of lies, fake facts, false flags and other turpitudes of the neocon/neo-liberal media requires constant attention, and more than a critical eye.

As the US presidency under Donald Trump sank further into the sulfur of the neocon swamp, amid force applauds from the worse in US politics, we wondered what could be left of free-will for the man who defied the said swamp, not that long ago. With his clear-eyed advisers gone, who really now would explain to the president the realities of the world? Listening to outrageous statements about Iran and Korea, and the continuation of Obama’s shitty wars via proxies, drones and SOF, who could doubt that the generals are in charge?

Which takes us to Syria, where the battle front brings now the government forces and their allies closer and closer to the truth, which they no doubt have known all along: that “terrorism” was a mask, that there is no such thing as “ISIS” (or whatever) but an army of thugs, gangsters and murderers, set up, funded and armed by the US, under cover of an alleged “opposition” to the “regime”, to perpetuate their permanent attack on the last secular state in the Middle-East. The episode of the attack against the Syrian army and a small unit of Russian military police in Idlib, from positions held by Al-Nusra and the US SOF, the release by the Russian MoD of aerial photographies showing US armour and transport, in an area allegedly held by “ISIS”, and the absence of any evidence of fighting or air attack in the area, are a clear indication of the permanent intentions of the US government (or whoever is really in charge in DC). We knew from the very beginning of the Russian Airforce onslaught on “ISIS”, that the said “ISIS” appeared then remarkably untouched by the so-called anti terrorism coalition: oil quietly flowing from the stolen oil fields of Iraq and eastern Syria, to Turkey, installations in perfect order, after two years of alleged bombing by the said coalition etc. A sham. With the dismantling of “ISIS” and affiliated murderers, there is little doubt that what will be left, is the original sin: US SOF and gangs of thugs, armed and trained by them (“SDF”), from the very start of the conflict in occupied Iraq. No surprise that the Iraqi Kurds, allies of the US during the invasion of Iraq, are now calling their bluff: they want their independence, promised at the time to ensure their loyalty.

This is where the crunch lies: in the arc Turkey – Northern Syria – Iraqi Kurdistan and Iran. Is there any valuable comparison there with the Balkan situation pre-1914?

So, Germany just had general elections. The German system, its constitution and electoral laws, are without comparison elsewhere in the European Union. This is a federal system, where general elections (for the Bundestag, federal parliament) do not lead to an overall majority, without the formation of some coalition. Hence the debates, started even before official results were known, and behind the door negotiations that will last for weeks. Two notable facts: many voters deserted the parties (CDU/CSU and SPD) of the now dead “great coalition”, and the rise of the nationalist AfD. Nonetheless Mrs Merkel will still be Chancellor (head of government), and changes in Foreign Policies (NATO, Ukraine, Russian sanctions, Afghanistan) are unlikely in the medium term. But there is some hope that, with a real opposition in the Bundestag, assuming a likely CDU/CSU – FDP – Grün coalition, there may be some scope down the line.

On Sunday, the Berlin marathon was run on the wet streets of the capital. Heroic African runners won the race. The skies are grey.

“Legion”

Redemption?

Relax--

I awoke thinking of all the (mostly contemporary) times/events from which peoples and nations have come back — and of the threats against the world’s inhabitants that never materialized (at least, not unto total decimation)… so far — though Africa needs help. As does our entire ecology.

It’s a good thing the anthrax (Ricin, Sarin) scare petered out.  Our “dedicated safe room” would’ve likely poisoned/killed us by radon instead. Plus, I never put up the plastic that would seal us away from OR into our doom. Also, there was little money for storing up canned goods and bottled water.  And Skybars..  Okay, everyone in the whole world who thinks they hate my fam, just behave yourselves, and we will, too, okay? Excellent!

In all other seriousness, though, I thought about the Civil War –who couldn’t? Really, leave the statues and mottos and the (non-serpentine) flag in place; it is OUR American history —…

View original post 618 more words

Wie Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich 1952 vom 3. Weltkrieg spricht

Dämmerung der Westen…

Morbus ignorantia - Krankheit Unwissen

Per Mail  von G.Franz

Rabbi Emanuel Rabinovich:
Anfang 1952 wurde der Notstandsrat Europäischer Rabbiner dringend zu einer Zusammenkunft nach Budapest (Ungarn) einberufen, deren Gegenstand und Grund die Beschleunigung der Ausführung der Pläne für die jüdische Weltherrschaft sein sollte. Bei der am 12. Januar 1952 in dieser Stadt abgehaltenen Sitzung gab der Vorsitzende, Rabbi Emanuel RABINOVICH von London, in seiner Ansprache folgende Richtlinien für die nähere Zukunft:

“Ich begrüße Euch, meine Kinder!

Ihr wurdet hierher gerufen, um die hauptsächlichsten Schritte unseres neuen Programmes festzulegen. Wie Ihr wißt, hofften wir, 20 Jahre Zeit vor uns zu haben, um die im II. Weltkrieg von uns erzielten großen Gewinne zu festigen, jedoch hat unsere, auf gewissen lebenswichtigen Gebieten stark zunehmende Stärke, Opposition gegen uns erweckt und wir müssen deshalb jetzt mit allen uns zur Verfügung stehenden Mitteln dahin wirken, den Ausbruch des III. Weltkrieges zu beschleunigen.

Das Ziel, das wir während 3000 Jahren mit…

View original post 1,285 more words

The ‘Global Order’: Myth Teary-eyed nostalgia as cover for U.S. hegemony

By ANDREW J. BACEVICH

From: The American Conservative

shutterstock_281823848

Lotus_studio/Shutterstock 

During the Age of Trump, Year One, a single word has emerged to capture the essence of the prevailing cultural mood: resistance. Words matter, and the prominence of this particular term illuminates the moment in which we find ourselves.

All presidents, regardless of party or program, face criticism and opposition.Citizens disinclined to support that program protest. Marching, chanting, waving placards, and generally raising a ruckus in front of any available camera, they express dissent. In normal times, such activism testifies to the health of democracy.

Yet these are not normal times. In the eyes of Trump’s opponents, his elevation to the pinnacle of American politics constitutes a frontal assault on values that until quite recently appeared fixed and unassailable. In such distressing circumstances, mere criticism, opposition, protest, and dissent will not suffice. By their own lights, anti-Trump forces are fending off the apocalypse. As in November 1860 so too in November 2016, the outcome of a presidential election has placed at risk a way of life.

The very word resistance conjures up memories of the brave souls who during World War II opposed the Nazi occupation of their homelands, with the French maquis the best known example. It carries with it an unmistakable whiff of gunpowder. After resistance comes revolution.

Simply put, Trump’s most ardent opponents see him as an existential threat, with the clock ticking. Thus the stakes could hardly be higher. Richard Parker of Harvard has conjured what he calls Resistance School, which in three months has signed up some 30,000 anti-Trump resistors from 49 states and 33 countries. “It is our attempt to begin the long slow process of recovering and rebuilding our democracy,” says Parker. Another group styling itself the DJT Resistance declares that Trump represents “Hatred, Bigotry, Xenophobia, Sexism, Racism, and Greed.”

This is not language suggesting the possibility of dialogue or compromise. Indeed, in such quarters references to incipient fascism have become commonplace. Comparisons between Trump and Hitler abound. “It takes willful blindness,” writes Paul Krugman in the New York Times, “not to see the parallels between the rise of fascism and our current political nightmare.” And time is running short. Journalist Chris Hedges says “a last chance for resistance” is already at hand.

In the meantime, in foreign-policy circles at least, a second, less explosive term vies with resistance for Trump-era signature status. This development deserves more attention than it has attracted, especially among those who believe that alongside the question that riles up the resistance—namely, what values define us?—sits another question of comparable importance: “What principles define America’s role in the world?”

That second term, now creeping into the vocabulary of foreign-policy specialists, is liberal, often used interchangeably with the phrase rules-based and accompanied by additional modifiers such as open, international, and normative. All of these serve as synonyms for enlightened and good.

So Robert Kagan of the Brookings Institution, describing what he refers to as the “twilight of the liberal world order,” worries about the passing of “the open international economic system the United States created and helped sustain.” Donald Trump’s misguided emphasis on “America First,” Kagan writes, suggests that he has no interest in “attempting to uphold liberal norms in the international system” or in “preserving an open economic order.”

Commenting on Trump’s Inaugural Address, Nicole Gaouette, CNN national-security reporter, expresses her dismay that it contained “no reference to America’s traditional role as a global leader and shaper of international norms.” Similarly, a report in the Financial Times bemoans what it sees as “a clear signal about Mr. Trump’s disregard for many of the international norms that have governed America as the pillar of the liberal economic order.” The historian Jeremi Suri, barely a week into Trump’s presidency, charges Trump with “launching a direct attack on the liberal international order that really made America great after the depths of the Great Depression.” At the Council on Foreign Relations, Stewart Patrick concurs: Trump’s election, he writes, “imperils the liberal international order that America has championed since World War II.” Thomas Wright, another Brookings scholar, piles on: Trump “wants to undo the liberal international order the United States built and replace it with a 19th-century model of nationalism and mercantilism.”

In Foreign Policy, Colin Kahl and Hal Brands embellish the point: Trump’s strategic vision “diverges significantly from—and intentionally subverts—the bipartisan consensus underpinning U.S. foreign policy since World War II.” Failing to “subscribe to the long-held belief that ‘American exceptionalism’ and U.S. leadership are intertwined,” Trump is hostile to the “open, rule-based international economy” that his predecessors nurtured and sustained.

Need more? Let Gen. David Petraeus have the last word: “To keep the peace,” the soldier-turned-investment-banker writes in an essay entitled “America Must Stand Tall,” the United States has established “a system of global alliances and security commitments,” thereby nurturing “an open, free and rules-based international economic order.” To discard this legacy, he suggests, would be catastrophic.

You get the drift. Liberalism, along with norms, rules, openness, and internationalism: these ostensibly define the postwar and post-Cold War tradition of American statecraft. Allow Trump to scrap that tradition and you can say farewell to what Stewart Patrick refers to as “the global community under the rule of law” that the United States has upheld for decades.

But what does this heartwarming perspective exclude? We can answer that question with a single word: history.

Or, somewhat more expansively, among the items failing to qualify for mention in the liberal internationalist, rules-based version of past U.S. policy are the following: meddling in foreign elections; coups and assassination plots in Iran, Guatemala, the Congo, Cuba, South Vietnam, Chile, Nicaragua, and elsewhere; indiscriminate aerial bombing campaigns in North Korea and throughout Southeast Asia; a nuclear arms race bringing the world to the brink of Armageddon; support for corrupt, authoritarian regimes in Iran, Turkey, Greece, South Korea, South Vietnam, the Philippines, Brazil, Egypt, Nicaragua, El Salvador, and elsewhere—many of them abandoned when deemed inconvenient; the shielding of illegal activities through the use of the Security Council veto; unlawful wars launched under false pretenses; “extraordinary rendition,” torture, and the indefinite imprisonment of persons without any semblance of due process.

Granted, for each of these, there was a rationale, rooted in a set of identifiable assumptions, ambitions, and fears. The CIA did not conspire with Britain’s MI6 in 1953 to overthrow Iran’s democratically elected president just for the hell of it. It did so because shelving Mohammad Mosaddegh seemingly offered the prospect of eliminating an annoying problem. In 1965, Lyndon Johnson did not commit U.S. combat troops to South Vietnam because he was keen to fight a major ground war in Asia but because the consequences of simply allowing events to take their course looked to be even worse. After 9/11, when George W. Bush and his associates authorized the “enhanced interrogation” of those held in secret prisons, panic rather than sadism prompted their actions. Even for the most egregious folly, in other words, there is always some explanation, however inadequate.

Yet collectively, the actions and episodes enumerated above do not suggest a nation committed to liberalism, openness, or the rule of law. What they reveal instead is a pattern of behavior common to all great powers in just about any era: following the rules when it serves their interest to do so; disregarding the rules whenever they become an impediment. Some regimes are nastier than others, but all are law-abiding when the law works to their benefit and not one day longer. Even Hitler’s Third Reich and Stalin’s USSR punctiliously observed the terms of their non-aggression pact as long as it suited both parties to do so.

My point is not to charge à la Noam Chomsky that every action undertaken by the United States government is inherently nefarious. Rather, I am suggesting that to depict postwar U.S. policy in terms employed by the pundits quoted above is to whitewash the past. Whether their motive is to deceive or merely to evade discomfiting facts is beside the point. What they are peddling belongs to the universe of alt facts. To characterize American statecraft as “liberal internationalism” is akin to describing the business of Hollywood as “artistic excellence.”

“Invocations of the ‘rules-based international order,’” Politico’s Susan Glasser rightly observes, “had never before caused such teary-eyed nostalgia.” Whence comes this sudden nostalgia for something that never actually existed? The answer is self-evident: it’s a response to Donald Trump.

Prior to Trump’s arrival on the scene, few members of the foreign-policy elite, now apparently smitten with norms, fancied that the United States was engaged in creating any such order. America’s purpose was not to promulgate rules but to police an informal empire that during the Cold War encompassed the “Free World” and became more expansive still once the Cold War ended. The pre-Trump Kagan, writing in 2012, neatly summarizes that view:

The existence of the American hegemon has forced all other powers to exercise unusual restraint, curb normal ambitions, and avoid actions that might lead to the formation of a U.S.-led coalition of the kind that defeated Germany twice, Japan once, and the Soviet Union, more peacefully, in the Cold War.

Leave aside the dubious assertions and half-truths contained within that sentence and focus on its central claim: the United States as a hegemon that forces other nations to bend to its will. Strip away the blather about rules and norms and here you come to the essence of what troubles Kagan and others who purport to worry about the passing of “liberal internationalism.” Their concern is not that Trump won’t show adequate respect for rules and norms. What has them all in a lather is that he appears disinclined to perpetuate American hegemony.

More fundamentally, Trump’s conception of a usable past differs radically from that favored in establishment quarters. Put simply, the 45th president does not subscribe to the imperative of sustaining American hegemony because he does not subscribe to the establishment’s narrative of 20th-century history. According to that canonical narrative, exertions by the United States in a sequence of conflicts dating from 1914 and ending in 1989 enabled good to triumph over evil. Absent these American efforts, evil would have prevailed. Contained within that parable-like story, members of the establishment believe, are the lessons that should guide U.S. policy in the 21st century.

Trump doesn’t see it that way, as his appropriation of the historically loaded phrase “America First” attests. In his view, what might have occurred had the United States not waged war against Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan and had it not subsequently confronted the Soviet Union matters less than what did occur when the assertion of hegemonic prerogatives found the United States invading Iraq in 2003 with disastrous results.

In effect, Trump dismisses the lessons of the 20th century as irrelevant to the 21st. Crucially, he goes a step further by questioning the moral basis for past U.S. actions. Thus, his extraordinary response to a TV host’s charge that Russian President Vladimir Putin is a killer. “There are a lot of killers,” Trump retorted. “We’ve got a lot of killers. What, you think our country is so innocent?” In offering this one brief remark, Trump thereby committed the ultimate heresy. Of course, no serious person believes that the United States is literally innocent. What members of the foreign-policy establishment—including past commanders-in-chief—have insisted is that the United States act as if it were innocent, with prior sins expunged and America’s slate wiped clean. This describes the ultimate U.S. perquisite and explains why, in the eyes of Robert Kagan et al., Russian actions in Crimea, Ukraine, or Syria count for so much while American actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya count for so little.

The desperate exercise in historical revisionism that now credits the United States with having sought all along to create a global community under the rule of law represents that establishment’s response to the heresies Trump has been spouting (and tweeting) since his famous ride down the escalator at Trump Tower.

Yet in reclassifying yesterday’s hegemon as today’s promulgator and respecter of norms, members of that establishment perpetrate a fraud. Whether Americans, notably gullible when it comes to history, will fall for this charade remains to be seen. Thus far at least, Trump himself, who probably knows a thing or two about snake-oil salesmen, shows little inclination to take the bait.

Say this for the anti-Trump resistance: while the fascism-just-around-the-corner rhetoric may be overheated and a touch overwrought, it qualifies as forthright and heartfelt. While not sharing the view that Trump will rob Americans of their freedoms, I neither question the sincerity nor doubt the passion of those who believe otherwise. Indeed, I am grateful to them for acting so forcefully on their convictions. They are inspiring.

Not so with those who now wring their hands about the passing of the fictive liberal international order credited to enlightened American statecraft. They are engaged in a great scam, working assiduously to sustain the pretense that the world of 2017 remains essentially what it was in 1937 or 1947 or 1957 when it is not.

Today’s Russia is not a reincarnation of the Soviet Union; the People’s Republic of China is not Imperial Japan; and the Islamic State in no way compares to Nazi Germany. Most of all, United States in the era of Donald Trump is not the nation that elected Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and Dwight Eisenhower, not least of all in the greatly reduced willingness of Americans to serve as instruments of state power, as the failed post-9/11 assertions of hegemony have demonstrated.

The world has changed in fundamental ways. So too has the United States. Those changes require that the principles guiding U.S. policy also change accordingly.

However ill-suited by intellect, temperament, and character for the office he holds, Trump has seemingly intuited the need for such change. In this regard, if in none other, I’m with the Donald
But note the irony. Trump may come closer to full-fledged historical illiteracy than any president since Warren G. Harding. Small wonder then that his rejection of the mythic past long employed to preempt serious debate regarding U.S. policy gives fits to the perpetrators of those myths.

Andrew J. Bacevich is TAC’s writer-at-large.  

Vers la Libération – 1

Sascha Schneider Der Mammon und sein Sklave

 

Les 8 et 9 Mai les alliés de 1945 célèbrent la victoire contre l’hydre hitlérienne, mais avec des arrières pensées bien différentes. Si la Fédération de Russie continue, sans discontinuité depuis 1945, de glorifier, à juste titre, les héros de la Grande Guerre Patriotique, peut-être son thème le plus unificateur, aujourd’hui comme hier, le “monde occidental” prétend regarder de l’autre côté: après tout, l’Union Européenne ne soutient-elle pas toujours (financièrement et par les armes) les seuls vrais fascistes au pouvoir en Europe aujourd’hui: le gang répugnant et criminel, issu du coup de force du 2014 Maidan en Ukraine.

Dans l’entre temps la France a succombé au syndrome Écossais, et a élu à la présidence, un représentant direct des oligarchies mondialistes. Bien qu’il soit trop tôt pour analyser le contenu sociologique et démographique de ce vote, les premières observations montrent la fragilité de cette “majorité”: le nouveau président n’a recueilli que 43% des électeurs inscrits, en dépit du support de la totalité des medias et des politiciens d’ancien régime.

Plusieurs questions se posent maintenant, dans le contexte d’un nouveau mouvement politique d’opposition (national et progressiste) au régime néo-libéral. En particulier:

  1. D’un point de vue qualitatif que peut-on dire du support politique pour Emmanuel Macron?
  2.  Comment comprendre/réconcilier la fragmentation géographique des votes opposés aux néo-libéraux?
  3. Une refonte du Front National est-elle possible?
  4. Est-il possible de développer un plan pratique et positif de retrait de l’Euro-zone? (Et sinon, quelle est l’alternative?)
  5. Compte tenu des différences économiques et politiques entre les deux pays, comment gérer une réforme des institutions européennes avec l’Allemagne?

Dans les mois qui viennent, je me propose d’explorer ces questions, à la lumière des événements qui vont suivre.

Image: Sascha Schneider [Public domain], Mammon et son esclave, via Wikimedia Commons (Der Mammon und sein Sklave. Holzstich. Aus der Reihe “Meisterwerke der Holzschneidekunst”, Verlag J. J. Weber, Leipzig. c. 1896)