How a middle way, Royal Republic Sweden can avoid WW III

From Mare Balticum Dominii to: Pax Mare Balticum

Gustaf II Adolf inherited the credo to dominate the States south and East of the Baltic Sea, by the idea of anchoring a mighty war ship Wasa overloaded with heavy cannons,
and thus instill fear and subdue the rulers to a war alliance with the Protestants of Northern Europe. (But the beautiful tall war ship sunk on its maiden voyage, still in Stockholm harbor zone)

Sweden with its able European mercenaries, however, survived on the winning side of the thirty year war in Central Europe. Our able Kingdom had proven its strength over the small divided German counties/Länders, not yet united into functioning Nations. The autocrat King of Sweden instilled fear and envy to the still feudal Europe. It worked well until a young overly confident Karl XII lost to the ambitious Tsar Peter at the Poltava battle field in 1709. Peter the Great, had the ambition to internationalize Russia with a Capital and naval/commercial port in S:Petersburg at the Finish Bay of the Baltic Sea. Karl had overstretched his military strength. He could not keep the occupied Russian land down south towards Ukraine under Swedish hegemonist rule and order.

Then, only some two hundred years ago a war-weary Field Marshall Jean Baptiste Bernadotte from Napoleon’s army was elected King of Sweden. Rather than taking up a fight against Russia, our Arch-enemy since Poltava, King Karl XIV Johan formed a peaceful alliance/union with Norway!?!   Like the Monroe doctrine 1823 our peaceful neutrality with neighbor countries worked well for a hundred years, similar to the realization of an American dream of neutral industrial nation building.

By birth and clever heritage, Sweden was able to stay almost neutral during both the Great War and the Second World War. Michael Child’s book Sweden the Middle Way between free market economy and an aggressive Socialism/Communism worked well for a century in tandem with a extreme capitalist private banking. The Wallenberg private bank organized itself like the Rockefeller’s under a tax exempt Foundation for philantrophic achievements in art and science: Smart Bankster tricks.

The collapse of the Soviet Empire in 1991 passed almost unnoticed by the pacified swedes, seemingly happy with it’s lagom/golden sufficiency way of materialistic and atheistic way of life. But at the depth of our souls, Swedes became more and more unhappy with their chosen way of life.  Sweden lagged behind. The religious and cultural impulses from the Mediterranean and Southern Europe had to pass the Alps, Germanic high culture and Denmark before entering the primitive clans of the Scandinavian peninsula.

But meditation practices, from Buddhist religion, Karma and reincarnation ideas from Hindu and Tibet monasteries, together with New Age and channelled literature on spiritual awakening and a widened consciousness  entered via Internet and the World Wide Web in recent years.

Scandinavia was insulated by a ferry connection until year 2000 when a bridge-tunnel geopolitically connected the Scandinavians both to Siberia and the mainland Europe. Sweden became a member of the grotesque EU bureaucracy in 1994 and opened its arms to an unprecedented flood of immigration in 2015, well organized by Georges Soros, CIA, NATO and the neocons, the US Neoconservative financial Israel Lobby elite in the USA, just before the one and only remaining Superpower reached its Financial Cliff and experienced its second Civil War against/ among its own population.

How can a beautiful, well balanced totalitarian democracy Sweden best survive the the financial WW III? Does the death of the 101 year old Patriarch David Rockefeller mark a crucial turning point? Will the disclosure of the 9/11 False flag event in New York open another door? Does the coming World Peace Foundation: Peace, Spirituality and the Future Conference in Brussels and Stockholm open new doors for a Firm End of the Cold War and beginning of a PAX Mare Balticum for the emotionally frozen Northern Europe with clear minds?

Well we have now a unique possibility to test a new form of IT-reinforced Direct Democracy for our future: The Royal Republic of Sweden. Furthermore let the some 200 remaining members of the Riksdagen / single chamber Swedish Parliament create a Constitutional change and introduce an able Vice President elected by the people beside the Future Queen Victoria of Sweden!
P.S. Can the above conferences be as uplifting as the Meeting of the Valdai International Discussion Club in the Novgorod Region, year 2013?
See more http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/19243

P.P.S. Now then, how can we handle today’s brutal State Terrorism by USA and Israel? How do we go from a CIA controlled NATO Dominated Middle East
to a Peaceful New World Order?

Yes indeed, we creative humans and Planetary Citizens want that….
( … This is a future peace scenario, yet to be written)

Posted in Cold War - WW III, Paul Craig Roberts, Peace | Leave a comment

Trump the Peace Maker, is still on top of US neoconservatives.

Trump warns that by attacking Assad, US will ‘end up fighting Russia’

Trump warns that by attacking Assad, US will ‘end up fighting Russia’
US President-elect Donald Trump has confirmed that he will most likely abandon the Obama administration policy on Syria to seek a possible rapprochement with Russia on the issue of Assad.

“I’ve had an opposite view of many people regarding Syria,” the 70-year-old Republican told the Wall Street Journal in his first interview since the election.

From the start of the Syrian war, Barack Obama’s foreign policy has been focused on the support and training of the so-called “moderate” rebel groups who were supposed to defeat Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL) terrorists, and survive to eventually overthrow Assad. That approach became deadlocked this year when Washington failed to honor its obligations under an agreement with Moscow to separate their moderate rebel forces from internationally-recognized terrorists.

Trump, on the other hand, said on Friday that the US should be focused on fighting Islamic State, instead of pursuing regime change in Syria.

“My attitude was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria… Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are.”

It has been widely documented and reported that American weapons supplied to the moderate rebels are often obtained by extremists in Syria. Those weapons, in turn, are being used by the jihadists to strike civilian positions and deploy them against Syrian forces.

The president-elect warned that if the US attacks Assad, “we end up fighting Russia, fighting Syria.”

The US coalition bombing of Syrian Army positions near the city of Deir el-Zour on September 17 led to the collapse of the US-Russian peace initiative.

Rapprochement in US-Russia ties could, however, be on the horizon after Trump admitted receiving a “beautiful” letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin. Trump said a phone call between them is scheduled shortly.

Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin are “very much alike… in their basic approaches toward international affairs,” Dmitry Peskov told the Associated Press earlier.

“[Trump] has been a very firm supporter of the idea of a good relationship between our countries, because we do carry a joint responsibility for strategic stability in the world, strategic security,” the spokesman said.

Immediately after Trump’s victory, Russian President Vladimir Putin stated that Moscow looks forward to restoring bilateral relations with the United States.

The US military establishment, however, already seems to be working against Trump’s policies. In an interview with CBS This Morning, Defense Secretary Ash Carter leveled a barrage of accusations at Russia.

He said the Russian campaign in Syria “fuels the fires” of ongoing violence in the country, claiming “they’re not doing what we need to do and think needs to be done [in Syria].”

READ MORE: A year of Russian anti-ISIS ops in Syria: 5 key milestones

“What the Russians said, if you’ll remember, was that they were going to come in and fight terrorism and help remove Assad,” Carter said. “They haven’t done either of those things. They haven’t done any of that.”

While Moscow has been undertaking efforts to eliminate Islamic State and Al-Nusra Front terrorists in Syria, it never said it would take part in the forcible removal of President Bashar Assad.

When the anchor Norah O’Donnell said “They’re helping Assad?” Carter continued, “Exactly. Which in turn simply fuels the fires of the Syrians civil war. So the Russians have been completely backwards there, in what they’ve been doing.

“So we have not been able to, and I have not been in favor, and am not recommending to the president that we associate ourselves with or work with the Russians until they start doing the right thing,” Carter concluded.

https://www.rt.com/news/382408-kremlin-comment-moscow-protest/

Posted in Cold War - WW III, Communicaton, Paul Craig Roberts, Politics, Trump | Leave a comment

Wall Street First, by Michael Hudson

 

The Democratic Party’s Death by Identity Politics

The Democratic Party’s Death by Identity Politics

Guest Column by Michael Hudson

Read it. It is superb. 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/46733.htm 

Wall Street First
By Michael Hudson

March 24, 2017 “Information Clearing House” –   Nobody yet can tell whether Donald Trump is an agent of change with a specific policy in mind, or merely a catalyst heralding an as yet undetermined turning point. His first month in the White House saw him melting into the Republican mélange of corporate lobbyists. Having promised to create jobs, his “America First” policy looks more like “Wall Street First.”

His cabinet of billionaires promoting corporate tax cuts, deregulation and dismantling Dodd-Frank bank reform repeats the Junk Economics promise that giving more tax breaks to the richest One Percent may lead them to use their windfall to invest in creating more jobs. What they usually do, of course, is simply buy more property and assets already in place.

One of the first reactions to Trump’s election victory was for stocks of the most crooked financial institutions to soar, hoping for a deregulatory scythe taken to the public sector. Navient, the Department of Education’s knee-breaker on student loan collections accused by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) of massive fraud and overcharging, rose from $13 to $18 after it seemed likely that the incoming Republicans would disable the CFPB and shine a green light for financial fraud.

Foreclosure king Stephen Mnuchin of IndyMac/OneWest (and formerly of Goldman Sachs for 17 years; later a George Soros partner) is now Treasury Secretary – and Trump pledged to abolish the CFPB, on the specious logic that letting fraudsters manage pension savings and other investments will give consumers and savers “broader choice,” e.g., for the financial equivalent of junk food.

Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos hopes to privatize public education into for-profit (and de-unionized) charter schools, breaking the teachers’ unions. This may position Trump to become the Transformational President that neoliberals have been waiting for.

But not the neocons. His election rhetoric promised to reverse traditional U.S. interventionist policy abroad. Making an anti-war left run around the Democrats, he promised to stop backing ISIS/Al Nusra (President Obama’s “moderate” terrorists supplied with the arms and money that Hillary looted from Libya), and to reverse the Obama-Clinton administration’s New Cold War with Russia. But the neocon coterie at the CIA and State Department are undercutting his proposed rapprochement with Russia by forcing out General Flynn for starters. It seems doubtful that Trump will clean them out.

Trump has called NATO obsolete, but insists that its members increase their spending to the stipulated 2% of GDP — producing a windfall worth tens of billions of dollars for U.S. arms exporters. That is to be the price Europe must pay if it wants to endorse Germany’s and the Baltics’ confrontation with Russia.

Trump is sufficiently intuitive to proclaim the euro a disaster, and he recommends that Greece leave it. He supports the rising nationalist parties in Britain, France, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands, all of which urge withdrawal from the eurozone – and reconciliation with Russia instead of sanctions. In place of the ill-fated TPP and TTIP, Trump advocates country-by-country trade deals favoring the United States. Toward this end, his designated ambassador to the European Union, Ted Malloch, urges the EU’s breakup. The EU is refusing to accept him as ambassador.

Will Trump’s victory break up the Democratic Party?

At the time this volume is going to press, there is no way of knowing how successful these international reversals will be. What is clearer is Trump’s political impact at home. His victory – or more accurately, Hillary’s resounding loss and the way she lost – has encouraged enormous pressure for a realignment of both parties. Regardless of what President Trump may achieve vis-à-vis Europe, his actions as celebrity chaos agent may break up U.S. politics across the political spectrum.

The Democratic Party has lost its ability to pose as the party of labor and the middle class. Firmly controlled by Wall Street and California billionaires, the Democratic National Committee (DNC) strategy of identity politics encourages any identity except that of wage earners. The candidates backed by the Donor Class have been Blue Dogs who pledged to promote Wall Street alongside neocons urging a New Cold War with Russia.

They preferred to lose with Hillary than to win behind Bernie Sanders. So Trump’s electoral victory is their legacy as well as Obama’s. Instead of Trump’s victory dispelling that strategy, the Democrats are doubling down. It is as if identity politics is all they have.

Trying to ride on Barack Obama’s coattails didn’t work. Promising “hope and change,” he won by posing as a transformational president, leading the Democrats to control of the White House, Senate and Congress in 2008. Swept into office by a national reaction against the George Bush’s Iraq Oil War and the junk-mortgage crisis that left the economy debt-ridden, they had free rein to pass whatever new laws they chose – even a Public Option in health care if they had wanted, or make Wall Street banks absorb the losses from their bad and often fraudulent loans.

But it turned out that Obama’s role was to prevent the changes that voters hoped to see, and indeed that the economy needed to recover: financial reform, debt writedowns to bring junk mortgages in line with fair market prices, and throwing crooked bankers in jail. Obama rescued the banks, not the economy, and turned over the Justice Department and regulatory agencies to his Wall Street campaign contributors. He did not even pull back from war in the Near East, but extended it to Libya and Syria, blundering into the Ukrainian coup as well.

Having dashed the hopes of his followers, Obama then praised his chosen successor Hillary Clinton as his “Third Term.” Enjoying this kiss of death, Hillary promised to keep up Obama’s policies.

The straw that pushed voters over the edge was when she asked voters, “Aren’t you better off today than you were eight years ago?” Who were they going to believe: their eyes, or Hillary’s? National income statistics showed that only the top 5 percent of the population were better off. All the growth in Gross Domestic Product (GDP) during Obama’s tenure went to them – the Donor Class that had gained control of the Democratic Party leadership.

Real incomes have fallen for the remaining 95 percent. Household budgets have been further eroded by soaring charges for health insurance. (The Democratic leadership in Congress fought tooth and nail to block Dennis Kucinich from introducing his Single Payer proposal.)

No wonder most of the geographic United States voted for change – except for where the top 5 percent is concentrated: in New York (Wall Street) and California (Silicon Valley and the military-industrial complex). Making fun of the Obama Administration’s slogan of “hope and change,” Trump characterized Hillary’s policy of continuing the economy’s shrinkage for the 95% as “no hope and no change.”

Identity Politics as anti-labor politics

A new term was introduced to the English language: Identity Politics. Its aim is for voters to think of themselves as separatist minorities – women, LGBTQ, Blacks and Hispanics. The Democrats thought they could beat Trump by organizing Women for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), LGBTQ for Wall Street (and a New Cold War), and Blacks and Hispanics for Wall Street (and a New Cold War). Each identity cohort was headed by a billionaire or hedge fund donor.

The identity that is conspicuously excluded is the working class. Identity politics strips away thinking of one’s interest in terms of having to work for a living. It excludes voter protests against having their monthly paycheck stripped to pay more for health insurance, housing and mortgage charges or education, better working conditions or consumer protection – not to speak of protecting debtors.

Identity politics used to be about three major categories: workers and unionization, anti-war protests and civil rights marches against racist Jim Crow laws. These were the three objectives of the many nationwide demonstrations. That ended when these movements got co-opted into the Democratic Party. Their reappearance in Bernie Sanders’ campaign in fact threatens to tear the Democratic coalition apart. As soon as the primaries were over (duly stacked against Sanders), his followers were made to feel unwelcome. Hillary sought Republican support by denouncing Sanders as being as radical as Putin’s Republican leadership.

In contrast to Sanders’ attempt to convince diverse groups that they had a common denominator in needing jobs with decent pay – and, to achieve that, opposing Wall Street’s replacing the government as central planner – the Democrats depict every identity constituency as being victimized by every other, setting themselves at each other’s heels. Clinton strategist John Podesta, for instance, encouraged Blacks to accuse Sanders supporters of distracting attention from racism. Pushing a common economic interest between whites, Blacks, Hispanics and LGBTQ always has been the neoliberals’ nightmare.

No wonder they tried so hard to stop Bernie Sanders, and are maneuvering to keep his supporters from gaining influence in their party.

When Trump was inaugurated on Friday, January 20, there was no pro-jobs or anti-war demonstration. That presumably would have attracted pro-Trump supporters in an ecumenical show of force. Instead, the Women’s March on Saturday led even the pro-Democrat New York Times to write a front-page article reporting that white women were complaining that they did not feel welcome in the demonstration. The message to anti-war advocates, students and Bernie supporters was that their economic cause was a distraction.

The march was typically Democratic in that its ideology did not threaten the Donor Class. As Yves Smith wrote on Naked Capitalism:

“the track record of non-issue-oriented marches, no matter how large scale, is poor, and the status of this march as officially sanctioned (blanket media coverage when other marches of hundreds of thousands of people have been minimized, police not tricked out in their usual riot gear) also indicates that the officialdom does not see it as a threat to the status quo.”[1]

Hillary’s loss was not blamed on her neoliberal support for TPP or her pro-war neocon stance, but on the revelations of the e-mails by her operative Podesta discussing his dirty tricks against Bernie Sanders (claimed to be given to Wikileaks by Russian hackers, not a domestic DNC leaker as Wikileaks claimed) and the FBI investigation of her e-mail abuses at the State Department. Backing her supporters’ attempt to brazen it out, the Democratic Party has doubled down on its identity politics, despite the fact that an estimated 52 percent of white women voted for Trump. After all, women do work for wages. And that also is what Blacks and Hispanics want – in addition to banking that serves their needs, not those of Wall Street, and health care that serves their needs, not those of the health-insurance and pharmaceuticals monopolies.

Bernie did not choose to run on a third-party ticket. Evidently he feared being accused of throwing the election to Trump. The question is now whether he can remake the Democratic Party as a democratic socialist party, or create a new party if the Donor Class retains its neoliberal control. It seems that he will not make a break until he concludes that a Socialist Party can leave the Democrats as far back in the dust as the Republicans left the Whigs after 1854. He may have underestimated his chance in 2016.

Trump’s effect on U.S. political party realignment

During Trump’s rise to the 2016 Republican nomination it seemed that he was more likely to break up the Republican Party. Its leading candidates and gurus warned that his populist victory in the primaries would tear the party apart. The polls in May and June showed him defeating Hillary Clinton easily (but losing to Bernie Sanders). But Republican leaders worried that he would not support what they believed in: namely, whatever corporate lobbyists put in their hands to enact and privatize.

The May/June polls showed Trump and Clinton were the country’s two most unpopular presidential candidates. But whereas the Democrats maneuvered Bernie out of the way, the Republican Clown Car was unable to do the same to Trump. In the end they chose to win behind him, expecting to control him. As for the DNC, its Wall Street donors preferred to lose with Hillary than to win with Bernie.

They wanted to keep control of their party and continue the bargain they had made with the Republicans: The latter would move further and further to the right, leaving room for Democratic neoliberals and neocons to follow them closely, yet still pose as the “lesser evil.” That “centrism” is the essence of the Clintons’ “triangulation” strategy. It actually has been going on for a half-century. “As Tanzanian President Julius Nyerere quipped in the 1960s, when he was accused by the US of running a one-party state, ‘The United States is also a one-party state but, with typical American extravagance, they have two of them’.”[2]

By 2017, voters had caught on to this two-step game. But Hillary’s team paid pollsters over $1 billion to tell her (“Mirror, mirror on the wall …”) that she was the most popular of all. It was hubris to imagine that she could convince the 95 Percent of the people who were worse off under Obama to love her as much as her East-West Coast donors did. It was politically unrealistic – and a reflection of her cynicism – to imagine that raising enough money to buy television ads would convince working-class Republicans to vote for her, succumbing to a Stockholm Syndrome by thinking of themselves as part of the 5 Percent who had benefited from Obama’s pro-Wall Street policies.

Hillary’s election strategy was to make a right-wing run around Trump. While characterizing the working class as white racist “deplorables,” allegedly intolerant of LBGTQ or assertive women, she resurrected the ghost of Joe McCarthy and accused Trump of being “Putin’s poodle” for proposing peace with Russia. Among the most liberal Democrats, Paul Krugman still leads a biweekly charge at The New York Times that President Trump is following Moscow’s orders.

Saturday Night Live, Bill Maher and MSNBC produce weekly skits that Trump and General Flynn are Russian puppets. A large proportion of Democrats have bought into the fairy tale that Trump didn’t really win the election, but that Russian hackers manipulated the voting machines. No wonder George Orwell’s 1984 soared to the top of America’s best-seller lists in February 2017 as Donald Trump was taking his oath of office.

This propaganda paid off on February 13, when neocon public relations succeeded in forcing the resignation of General Flynn, whom Trump had appointed to clean out the neocons at the NSA and CIA. His foreign policy initiative based on rapprochement with Russia to create a common front against ISIS/Al Nusra seems to be collapsing.

Tabula Rasa Celebrity Politics

U.S. presidential elections are no longer much about policy. Like Obama before him, Trump campaigned as a rasa tabla, a vehicle for everyone to project their hopes and fancies. What has all but disappeared is the past century’s idea of politics as a struggle between labor and capital, democracy vs. oligarchy.

Who would have expected even half a century ago that American politics would become so post-modern that the idea of class conflict has all but disappeared. Classical economic discourse has been drowned out by junk economics.

There is a covert economic program, to be sure, and it is bipartisan. It is to make elections about just which celebrities will introduce neoliberal economic policies with the most convincing patter talk. That is the essence of rasa tabla politics.

Can the Democrats lose again in 2020?

Trump’s November victory showed that voters found him to be the Lesser Evil, but all that voters really could express was “throw out the bums” and get a new set of lobbyists for the FIRE sector and corporate monopolists. Both candidates represented Goldman Sachs and Wall Street. No wonder voter turnout has continued to plunge.

Although the Democrats’ Lesser Evil argument lost to the Republicans in 2016, the neoliberals in control of the DNC found the absence of a progressive economic program to be less threatening to their interests than the critique of Wall Street and neocon interventionism coming from the Sanders camp. So the Democrat will continue to pose as the Lesser Evil party not really in terms of policy, but simply ad hominum. They will merely repeat Hillary’s campaign stance: They are not Trump.

Their parades and street demonstrations since his inauguration have not come out for any economic policy.

On Friday, February 10, the party’s Democratic Policy group held a retreat for its members in Baltimore. Third Way “centrists” (Republicans running as Democrats) dominated, with Hillary operatives in charge. The conclusion was that no party policy was needed at all.

“President Trump is a better recruitment tool for us than a central campaign issue,’ said Washington Rep. Denny Heck, who is leading recruitment for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC).”[3]

But what does their party leadership have to offer women, Blacks and Hispanics in the way of employment, more affordable health care, housing or education and better pay? Where are the New Deal pro-labor, pro-regulatory roots of bygone days? The party leadership is unwilling to admit that Trump’s message about protecting jobs and opposing the TPP played a role in his election. Hillary was suspected of supporting it as “the gold standard” of trade deals, and Obama had made the Trans-Pacific Partnership the centerpiece of his presidency – the free-trade TPP and TTIP that would have taken economic regulatory policy out of the hands of government and given it to corporations.

Instead of accepting even Sanders’ centrist-left stance, the Democrats’ strategy was to tar Trump as pro-Russian, insisting his aides had committed impeachable offenses, and mount one parade after another. “Rep. Marcia Fudge of Ohio told reporters she was wary of focusing solely on an “economic message” aimed at voters whom Trump won over in 2016, because, in her view, Trump did not win on an economic message. “What Donald Trump did was address them at a very different level — an emotional level, a racial level, a fear level,” she said. “If all we talk about is the economic message, we’re not going to win.”[4]

This stance led Sanders supporters to walk out of a meeting organized by the “centrist” Third Way think tank on Wednesday, February 8.

By now this is an old story. Fifty years ago, socialists such as Michael Harrington asked why union members and progressives still imagined that they had to work through the Democratic Party. It has taken the rest of the country half a century to see that Democrats are not the party of the working class, unions, middle class, farmers or debtors. They are the party of Wall Street privatizers, bank deregulators, neocons and the military-industrial complex. Obama showed his hand – and that of his party – in his passionate attempt to ram through the corporatist TPP treaty that would have enabled corporations to sue governments for any costs imposed by public consumer protection, environmental protection or other protection of the population against financialized corporate monopolies.

Against this backdrop, Trump’s promises and indeed his worldview seem quixotic. The picture of America’s future he has painted seems unattainable within the foreseeable future. It is too late to bring manufacturing back to the United States, because corporations already have shifted their supply nodes abroad, and too much U.S. infrastructure has been dismantled.

There can’t be a high-speed railroad, because it would take more than four years to get the right-of-way and create a route without crossing gates or sharp curves. In any case, the role of railroads and other transportation has been to increase real estate prices along the routes. But in this case, real estate would be torn down – and having a high-speed rail does not increase land values.

The stock market has soared to new heights, anticipating lower taxes on corporate profits and a deregulation of consumer, labor and environmental protection. Trump may end up as America’s Boris Yeltsin, protecting U.S. oligarchs (not that Hillary would have been different, merely cloaked in a more colorful identity rainbow). The U.S. economy is in for Shock Therapy. Voters should look to Greece to get a taste of the future in this scenario.

Without a coherent response to neoliberalism, Trump’s billionaire cabinet may do to the United States what neoliberals in the Clinton administration did to Russia after 1991: tear out all the checks and balances, and turn public wealth over to insiders and oligarchs. So Trump’s best chance to be transformative is simply to be America’s Yeltsin for his party’s oligarchic backers, putting the class war back in business.

What a truly transformative president would do/would have done

No administration can create a sound U.S. recovery without dealing with the problem that caused the 2008 crisis in the first place: over-indebtedness. The only way to restore growth, raise living standards and make the economy competitive again is a debt writedown. But that is not yet on the political horizon. Obama’s doublecross of his voters in 2009 prevented the needed policy from occurring. Having missed this chance in the last financial crisis, a progressive policy must await yet another crisis. But so far, no political party is preparing a program to juxtapose the Republican-Democratic austerity and scale-back of Social Security, Medicare and social spending programs.

Also no longer on the horizon is a more progressive income tax, or a public option for health care – or for banking, or consumer protection against financial fraud, or for a $15-an-hour minimum wage, or for a revived protection of labor’s right to unionize. Or environmental regulations.

It seems that only a new party can achieve these aims. At the time these essays are going to press, Sanders has committed himself to working within the Democratic Party. But that stance is based on his assumption that somehow he can recruit enough activists to take over the party from Its Donor Class.

I suspect he will fail. In any case, it is easier to begin afresh than to try to re-design a party (or any institution) dominated by resistance to change, and whose idea of economic growth is a pastiche of tax cuts and deregulation. Both U.S. parties are committed to this neoliberal program – and seek to blame foreign enemies for the fact that its effect is to continue squeezing living standards and bloating the financial sector.

If this slow but inexorable crash does lead to a political crisis, it looks like the Republicans may succeed in convening a new Constitutional Convention (many states already have approved this) to lock the United States into a corporatist neoliberal world. Its slogan will be that of Margaret Thatcher: TINA – There Is No Alternative.

And who is to disagree? As Trotsky said, fascism is the result of the failure of the left to provide an alternative.

Michael Hudson is President of The Institute for the Study of Long-Term Economic Trends (ISLET), a Wall Street Financial Analyst, Distinguished Research Professor of Economics at the University of Missouri, Kansas City and author of J is Junk Economics (2017), Killing the Host (2015), The Bubble and Beyond (2012), Super-Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire (1968 & 2003), Trade, Development and Foreign Debt (1992 & 2009) and of The Myth of Aid (1971), amongst many others.

Footnotes
[1] Yves Smith, “Women Skeptical of the Women’s March,” Naked Capitalism, February 10, 2017.
[2] Radhika Desai, “Decoding Trump,” Counterpunch, February 10, 2017.
[3] “Pelosi denies Democrats are divided on strategy for 2018,” Yahoo News, February 10, 2018.
[4] ibid

Posted in Cold War - WW III, Communicaton, Economy, Paul Craig Roberts, Politics, Trump | Leave a comment

Clintons Farewell

 John V. Walsh Archive 
How the Clintons Failed to Heed Lessons of Treaty of Versailles.
Changing Course, They Set the U.S. on Dangerous Path of Confronting Russia.
shutterstock_179155100

 

Ever more antiwar voices are clamoring for a Stop Hillary Clinton movement in the Democratic primaries – and with very good reason. There are many alarming, indeed frightening, indictments of her tenures as one-half president in the 90s and then as Senator and Secretary of State. Her estranged relationship with truth, her callousness toward human life and her love for every imperial military adventure and regime change scheme are beyond worrisome. They are downright scary.

But the most damning indictment yet of the Clintons on the world stage comes in the book Superpower Illusions by former Ambassador to the USSR, Jack Matlock. The book came out way back in 2009, but it is worth examining again as we confront the possibility of a return to Clintonism. And Matlock is a man who knows whereof he speaks. Wikipedia gives a summary of his career thus:

Jack Foust Matlock, Jr. (born October 1, 1929) is a former American ambassador, career Foreign Service Officer, a teacher, a historian, and a linguist. He was a specialist in Soviet affairs during some of the most tumultuous years of the Cold War, and served as U.S. Ambassador to the Soviet Union from 1987 to 1991.

After (graduate) studies at Columbia University…, (Matlock) entered the Foreign Service in 1956. His 35 year career encompassed much of the Cold War … His first assignment to Moscow was in 1961, and it was from the embassy there that he experienced the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis, helping to translate diplomatic messages between the leaders. 

At the beginning of détente, he was Director of Soviet Affairs in the State Department, ..(attended) all but one of the U.S. – Soviet summits held in the 20 year period 1972-91. Matlock was back in Moscow in 1974, serving in the number two position in the embassy for four years (including time under President Jimmy Carter, jw). Matlock was assigned to Moscow again in 1981 as acting ambassador during the first part of Ronald Reagan’s presidency. Reagan appointed him as ambassador to Czechoslovakia and later asked him to return to Washington in 1983 to work at the National Security Council, with the assignment to develop a negotiating strategy to end the arms race. When Mikhail Gorbachev became the leader of the Soviet Union in 1985, arms negotiations and summit meetings resumed. Matlock was appointed ambassador to the Soviet Union in 1987 and saw the last years of the Soviet Union before he retired from the Foreign Service in 1991.

There is no doubt that Matlock knew what was going on during this period, and he saw considerable promise for a peaceful, secure future at the end of the Bush I presidency. So when he forcefully condemns the Clintons for a disastrous turn in U.S. policy, he is a voice that must be heeded. The original sin of the era stains the Clintons, and they spawned their own inevitable Cain in the form of W.

Being a diplomat, Mattlock speaks diplomatically of the colossal, damaging shift in U.S. -Russia relations under the Clintons who reversed the approach of Reagan and Bush I. He gets to the point right away in the preface to Superpower Illusions:

“The Clinton administration’s decision to expand NATO to the East rather than draw Russia into a cooperative arrangement to ensure European security undermined the prospects of democracy in Russia, made it more difficult to keep peace in the Balkans and slowed the process of nuclear disarmament started by Presidents Reagan and Gorbachev.”

That is a severely damaging condemnation of the Clintons, one of historic dimensions, as we see now as events unfold in Ukraine, with one of Hillary’s protégés, her State Department spokeswoman, Victoria Nuland, very much in charge of the U.S. intervention there. Matlock was so appalled by the Clintons that he changed his political affiliation:

“After I retired from the Foreign Service, I left the Democratic Party early in the Clinton presidency. I felt that President Clinton… lacked both the vision and the competence to take advantage of the opportunity the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union provided. That opportunity was nothing less than a chance to create a world in which security tasks could be shared, weapons of mass destruction reduced rapidly and barriers to nuclear proliferation raised.”

Matlock is appalled that President Clinton lacked both the vision and the competenceto proceed on a peaceful task. What else is there? Of course he should have said Presidents Clinton since, as Bill always reminded us, he and Hillary shared the task – “two for one,” as he put it, or Billary or Hillbillary as the alternative media labels the duo.

Matlock does not let Bush II off the hook. He is no apologist for the GOP hawks. He sees “W” as continuing and deepening the folly of the Clintons, writing:

“In its sixteen years under Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, America went from being the most admired country on the planet in many opinion polls to the most feared…..The majority of the people in many countries considered the United States the most dangerous country in the world. Nobody likes a bully….”

If anyone comes across as a hectoring bully in her public statements, it is surely Hillary. There are plenty of pundits, mostly of the Democrat or “progressive” persuasion, out there who are all too willing to blame Bush II for all this– even unto FOX’s Megyn Kelly. But in fact the latest bad turn in American imperial policies began with the Clintons.

Matlock also reminds us that it was the Clintons who began NATO’s war on the Balkans, the precedent for other “humanitarian” interventions, including Libya and Syria. This too was a sharp break with Reagan/Bush I as Matlock notes:

“Bush and Baker also injected caution in extending American involvement in disputes that were not directly relevant to American security. As tensions rose among Yugoslavia’s constituent republics, they tried to keep the United States aloof and leave the primary responsibility to America’s European allies. Regarding the growing conflict in Yugoslavia, Baker was quoted as saying, ‘We don’t have a dog in that fight.’”

But there is no fight for which Hillary lacks a dog, and almost always it is a dog of war. The war in the Balkans so engaged her that she declared that she came under fire while visiting there to cheer on the effort. The claim of bullets whizzing by her head turned out to be little more than another in the fabric of mistruths woven by this “congenital liar,” as the late William Safire, a master and connoisseur of the trade of deception himself, labeled her.

On locations 3236 to 6276 of the Kindle edition of Superpower Illusions, Matlock makes his case against the Clintons. Here are some of his words:

“For all of its initial talk about a ‘partnership for reform,’ the Clinton administration dealt with Russia as if it no longer counted, even in European politics. Two decisions in particular turned Russian public opinion during the years of the Clinton administration from strongly pro-American to vigorous opposition to American policies abroad. The first was the decision to extend the NATO military structure into countries that had previously been members of the Warsaw Pact – something Gorbachev had understood would not happen if he allowed a united Germany to remain in NATO. The second was the decision to bomb Serbia without authorization from the United Nations Security Council. “ (A similar contempt for the UN showed up when Obama and Hillary won approval for a no fly zone over Gaddafi’s Libyato the UN Security Council in 2011 by getting China and Russia not to veto it – and then turned it into a bombing campaign, in violation of promises to Russia and China, something Putin labeled as the last straw in terms of trusting the U.S. – jw)

“There was no need to expand NATO to ensure the security of the newly independent countries of Eastern Europe. There were other ways those countries could have been reassured and protected without seeming to re-divide Europe to Russia’s disadvantage. As for the bombing of Serbia (another favorite project of Hillary’s, jw), if NATO had not been enlarged in the manner that occurred, Russia’s government would been much more willing to put pressure on Slobodan Milosevic to come to terms with the Kosovars and – if unsuccessful in this effort – more willing to vote in the United Nations to authorize military intervention…….Clinton’s actions severely damaged the credibility of democratic leaders in Russia who appealed for a more considerate attitude toward Russian national interests.”

“Combined with claiming “victory” in the Cold War (Something the Clintons did but Reagan had not done! jw) expanding NATO suggested to the Russian public that throwing off communism and breaking up the Soviet Union had probably been a bad idea. Instead of getting credit for voluntarily joining the West, they were being treated as if they had been defeated and were not worthy to be allies.”

“The Clinton administration was deaf to these appeals as well as those of George Kennan the author of the successful containment policy, who warned that enlarging NATO in the proposed manner would be the ‘most fateful error of American policy in the entire post-cold-war era.’ He then explained why: ‘Such a decision may be expected to … restore the atmosphere of the cold war in East-West relations and to impel Russian foreign policy in directions decidedly not to our liking. And last but not least it may make it much more difficult, if not impossible, to secure the Russian Duma’s ratification of the START II agreement and to achieve further reductions of nuclear weapons’’

Thus, the Clintons turned the United States in a very confrontational direction, something that is a hallmark of Hillary’s views to this day. Again Matlock:

“The Clinton administration, without any provocation, in effect repeated a fundamental mistake made at Versailles in 1919. … The Clinton administration practically ensured that … Russia would lose its incentive to reduce nuclear weapons….My point is that the United States should have made every effort to bring the European states, West and East, and including Russia into a new security arrangement…..”

Matlock concludes this section:

“The Clinton administration’s action in bombing Serbia without U.N. approval not only enraged Russia and made close cooperation on nuclear issues more difficult, but it also sent a message to other countries with policies or practices that met American disapproval: Better get nuclear weapons as fast as you can! Otherwise, you can become a target for the U.S. Air Force.”

I would disagree with one point Matlock makes. He feels that the Clintons made the mistakes they did out of domestic political concerns, specifically to get the votes of Poles and others of Eastern European extraction who harbored considerable resentment against the Soviet Union and hence Russia. But the Clintons pursued these policies deep into his second administration right up to the 2000 election of W.

Moreover, Hillary espoused these policies consistently in her 2008 primary battle with Obama who defeated her, largely by presenting himself in contrast to her as the candidate of Peace. And she continued to espouse these hawkish policies right up to last week where she told the Wall Street Journal that she will be a more warlike president than Obama, saying that she would have sent more arms to the “moderate” Syrian rebels long ago – in contrast to Obama. (Of course the “moderate” Syrian rebels have the same base in reality as the Seven Dwarfs. They are a fairy tale.)

From watching the Clintons in the White House for eight years and from Hillary’s hawkish record as Senator and Secretary of State, there can be little doubt that her views are heartfelt. She remains a lethal admixture of neocon and humanitarian imperialist views, an American Exceptionalist, giddy with American military power, arrogantly confident that “our values” are universal and determined that no other power, however peaceful, will achieve the military or economic might to stand up to the U.S. As China rises, peacefully so far, consistent with its history and culture, and as Russia and Iran gain strength, her views could plunge us into a World War. She is far too shallow, arrogant and bellicose to be President at a time when new thinking and considerable wisdom is needed.

John V. Walsh also writes for Antiwar.com, DissidentVoice.org and CounterPunch.com. By day until recently he slaved over a hot oscilloscope attempting to tease out the secret of cellular neuronal function. He can be reached at john.endwar@gmail.com

 

Posted in Cold War - WW III, Paul Craig Roberts, Politics, Trump, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

NATO: Providing weapons and instructors to terrorist is our business

‘Americans Are On Our Side’: Al-Nusra Commander Says US Arming Jihadists Via Third Countries

  296
Members of al Qaeda's Nusra Front carry their weapons as they sit in a trench near al-Zahra village, north of Aleppo city

US weapons are being delivered to Jabhat Al-Nusra by governments that Washington supports, a militant commander told the German media, adding that American instructors were in Syria to teach how to use the new equipment.

“Yes, the US supports the opposition [in Syria], but not directly. They support the countries that support us. But we are not yet satisfied with this support,” Jabhat al-Nusra unit commander Abu Al Ezz said in an interview with Koelner Stadt-Anzeiger newspaper from the devastated Syrian city of Aleppo.

According to the commander, the militants should be receiving more “sophisticated weapons” from their backers to succeed against the Syrian government.

“The fight is difficult. The regime is strong and gets support from Russia,” he explained.

Al Ezz said that Jabhat Al-Nusra “won battles thanks to TOW rockets. Due to these rockets, we reached a balance with the regime. Our tanks came from Libya via Turkey, joined by the [BM-21] multiple rocket launchers,” he said.

The government forces have an advantage because of aircraft and missile launchers, but “we have the American-made TOW missiles, and the situation in some areas is under control,” Al Ezz added.

When asked if the TOW missiles were initially intended for Jabhat Al-Nusra or if the group obtained them from the moderate Free Syrian Army, the jihadist clarified:

“No, the missiles were given to us directly.”

He also said that when Jabhat Al-Nusra was “besieged, we had officers from Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Israel and America here… Experts in the use of satellites, rockets, reconnaissance and thermal security cameras.”

The journalist asked specifically if the US instructors were really present among the jihadists’ ranks and Al Ezz replied: 

“The Americans are on our side.”

He also said that Jabhat Al-Nusra has been paid for achieving specific military goals during the Syrian conflict.

“We got 500 million Syrian pounds (around $2.3 million) from Saudi Arabia. To capture the Infantry School in Al Muslimiya years ago we received 1.5 million Kuwaiti dinars (around $500,000) and Saudi Arabia’s $5 million,” Al Ezz said.

The money came from the “governments” of those states, not private individuals, he said.

“Israel is now giving us support because Israel is at war with Syria and with Hezbollah,” Al Ezz said.

The West also “paved the way” for jihadists coming to Syria, saying that “we have many fighters from Germany, France, Britain, America, from all the Western countries,” the commander said.

‘Americans are on our side’: Al-Nusra commander says US arming jihadists via 3rd countries

‘Al-Nusra using ceasefire to regroup, prepare for new attacks’

In the interview, he confirmed claims made by Moscow and the Syrian government that the militants were using the Syrian ceasefire, agreed by Russia and US on September 9, to prepare for a new offensive.

“We do not recognize the ceasefire. We will regroup our groups. We will carry out the next overwhelming attack against the regime in a few days. We have regrouped our forces in all provinces, including Homs, Aleppo, Idlib and Hama,” Al Ezz said.

He said that Jabhat Al-Nusa would not let trucks with humanitarian aid enter Aleppo “as long as the regime [forces] are along the Castello Road, in Al Malah and in the northern regions.”

“The regime must withdraw from all the territories, and we will let the trucks in. If a truck is going in anyway, we will detain the driver,” he said.

The idea of a transitional government in Syria is also not supported by Jabhat Al-Nusra, the commander said.

“We accept no one from the Assad regime or of the Free Syrian Army, which is described as moderate. Our goal is to overthrow the regime, and establish an Islamic state in accordance with the Islamic Sharia,” he said.

As for the people who represent the Syrian opposition at the Geneva talks, Al Ezz said that “these people are weak, they’ve got a lot of money. They’ve sold themselves.”

“There are mercenaries in Syria, Alloush fights with Al Nusra-Front,” he said talking about Mohammed Alloush, a leader in the Jaysh al-Islam group, part of the Syrian opposition’s High Negotiations Committee (HNC) in the peace talks. “The group that was housed in Turkey and which was turned into the Free Syrian Army, used to be part of Al Nusra-Front.”

The commander openly confirmed that Jabhat Al-Nusra “are part of Al Qaeda,” the terrorist network responsible for the 9/11 attacks.

“Actually, we were inside one group together with the Islamic State (IS, formerly ISIS/ISIL). But the Islamic State has been used in accordance with the interests and political purposes of the big powers like America, and the group has drifted away from our principles. Most of the IS leaders are working with intelligence services, and it’s now clear for us. We, the Jabhat Al-Nusra, have our own way,” Al Ezz said.

The interview with Jabhat al-Nusra’s commander was taken at a stone quarry in Aleppo on September 17 by Koelner Stadt-Anzeiger journalist Jurgen Todenhofer on his seventh trip to war-torn Syria.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The American Inquisition and Global Research

“Fake Scholarship” and the Future of America’s University

 

Ex Cathedra, Harvard has decided in one fell swoop that virtually the entire US based “Alternative Media” pertaining to tens of thousands of authors would be categorized not only as fake news, but fake science, knowledge and analysis.

The Harvard Index however goes far beyond the Catholic Church’s Index which selectively banned books after careful reading, review and evaluation within the Church’s hierarchy. This frivolous decision by Harvard constitutes a violation of the most fundamental principles of  university education which are debate, discussion, critique and analysis.

The Harvard Index acts as a Lynchpin. It establishes a “new normal”, a guideline to colleges and universities across the land, regarding what we can or cannot read, what we can or cannot write. 

Is it a conspiracy? Yes it is.  Harvard’s Index broadly undermines the foundation of University education. It instates academic mediocrity.

In turn, the targeted websites– including Global Research-  are the object of a “wiki-smear” campaign, which has become embedded in online search engines. The latter tend to be increasingly skewed against alternative media content.

The “alternative media” sites are thereby casually tagged as promoting “fake news” and “conspiracy theories”.

Harvard Library lists the “authoritative” “Fact-Checking” sites and Plugins required by both students and professors to detect ‘Fake news”.

The “universus” is the totality of  analysis and conceptualization: debate, discussion, observation, critique, interaction. The University as an institution encompasses the development of knowledge, learning and research in the sciences, humanities, philosophy, history, social sciences, applied sciences, medicine, the study of law and justice, engineering, environmental analysis, policy analysis, management as well as all creative endeavors in the fine arts and music.

The various interrelated disciplines constitute the “universus”, the totality of knowledge, the learning process which characterizes humanity. Collegiality is what unites teachers, researchers (colleagues) within an academic environment in which independence of thought and mutual respect prevail.

Of course there are dominant schools of thought particularly in establishment academic institutions, certainly in the fields of economics and political science; there are vested interests which pervade academia, there is ideology and “politically correct” perspectives which pervade teaching and research.  But there is also plurality of thought and freedom of expression. Students are not discouraged or prevented from reading from an Index of prohibited books and publications.

The university is the place where universal values are debated. The advance of knowledge is humanity’s guiding force.

Harvard established their list without reading or even consulting the contents of the alleged fake online publications.

We’re talking about an extensive archive of hundreds of thousand of articles and authors including award winning scientists, prominent journalists, university professors, Nobel laureates, artists, actors, movie directors, distinguished politicians including  members of the US Congress as well as young and committed authors and bloggers, not to mention university, college and high school students. Ironically, within this extensive archive are numerous university professors, prominent researchers, many of whom coincidentally are graduates of America’s “best” universities (including Harvard).

What are the implications? Is Harvard’s Censorship initiative, as a “leading” Ivy League institution intent upon triggering  a process whereby universities in the US, Canada  and Western Europe establish what is true and what is false, without analysis, dialogue or critique, thereby banning the truth and upholding the lie?

America’s global military agenda, not to mention extensive war crimes is supported by a vast propaganda apparatus which now”officially” includes Harvard University.

What is the endgame?

The filtering out and the eventual closing down of the alternative online media?

The systematic smearing of critical thought?

The transformation of the university into a de facto instrument of indoctrination, where science and knowledge are used to justify police state surveillance and America’s hegemonic wars?

Within America’s universities, the learning process is to be revamped. Alternative views are to be discarded. Critical debate on the geopolitics of war are to be foreclosed.  The criminalization of US politics is not an object of debate within the nation’s colleges and universities.

How is this carried out.

Students –who unduly refer or quote independent or dissident scholars and scientist–  will not be allowed to graduate.

In turn, the universities will not recruit professors and researchers who do not conform to establishment scholarship.

Critical debate and plurality are gradually phased out. It’s a reproductive process which consists in eliminating dissident views within academia.

The American Inquisition

An inquisitorial system is unfolding in some regards similar to the Spanish inquisition. A consensus building process is established within the nation’s institutions of higher learning.  It requires social subordination in areas of analysis and scientific research.

The political consensus cannot be questioned. In its contemporary version, the inquisition requires and demands submission to the notion that war is a means to spreading Western values and democracy. And the university is part of a consensus building process, whereby concepts and realities are turned upside down.

War is peace. The ‘big lie’ becomes the truth … and the real truth becomes a ‘conspiracy theory’.

And a witch hunt against the independent media is launched.

Those who are committed to the Truth are categorized as “Terrorists”. War is upheld as a peace-making endeavor. When war becomes peace, the Lie becomes the truth. There is no turning backwards.

When war is upheld as a humanitarian endeavor,  the judicial system is criminalized, the entire international legal system is turned upside down: pacifism and the antiwar movement are criminalized.

Has Harvard joined the bandwagon, with precise guidelines to its professors and students? Has academia joined the corporate media in obfuscating the unspoken truth, namely that America’s hegemonic wars destroy humanity?

The compliance of intellectuals within “leading”universities and research institutions is crucial to sustaining the “Big Lie”. Opposing the war is taboo within colleges and universities.

The Lie prevails. A world of fantasy permeates the mainstream media. The Universus is fractured and destroyed. Concepts are turned upside down.  Political insanity prevails.

We are at a dangerous crossroads in our history. No more scientific analysis, no more critique: Tactical nuclear weapons (B61-11) “are harmless to the surrounding civilian population because the explosion is underground” (according to co-opted “scientists” on contract the Pentagon). Those who decide on waging nuclear war believe their own propaganda. They are totally ignorant as to the broader consequences of using nuclear weapons.

The danger of a third world war is obfuscated by both the media and academia. University scholarship conforms.

When Propaganda becomes knowledge

Analysis and debate on the impacts of global warfare and the future humanity are foreclosed.  The University now tells us: you have a responsibility to support “humanitarian wars”.

The Big Lie must be exposed for what it is and what it does.

It sanctions the indiscriminate killing of men, women and children.

It destroys families and people. It destroys the commitment of people towards their fellow human beings.

It prevents people from expressing their solidarity for those who suffer. It upholds war and the police state as the sole avenue.

It destroys both nationalism and internationalism.

When the lie becomes the truth there is no turning backwards. (Michel Chossudovsky, When the Lie Becomes the Truth

Action

Break the propaganda and media disinformation nexus.

Rebuild the anti-war movement,

Initiate a broad movement in colleges, universities against “Fake Scholarship”.

Note

1. See Grendler, Paul F. “Printing and censorship” in The Cambridge History of Renaissance PhilosophyCharles B. Schmitt, ed, Cambridge University Press, 1988, pp. 45–46. Quoted by Wikipedia.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

David Rockefeller has died

US billionaire philanthropist David Rockefeller dies at 101

David Rockefeller is seen in this photo.Image copyrightAP
Image captionDavid Rockefeller was the youngest of five sons of John D Rockefeller Jr

Billionaire philanthropist David Rockefeller has died in his sleep at his home in Poncantico Hills, New York, a spokesman said. He was 101 years old.

Mr Rockefeller, the last of his generation in the famed American family, was the grandson of Standard Oil co-founder John D Rockefeller.

The centenarian was at the helm of his family’s fortune, controlling both philanthropic and business interests.

He was the youngest of five sons of John D Rockefeller Jr.

Though he never sought political office, he had two brothers who served in government.

Nelson Rockefeller served as governor of New York and briefly as US vice-president while Winthrop Rockefeller was the governor of Arkansas.

David Rockefeller graduated from Harvard in 1936 and received a doctorate in economics from the University of Chicago in 1940.

He then served in the army World War Two before working at Chase Bank, which later became JP Morgan Chase.

Art collector

He was named president of the company in 1961 and chairman and chief executive in 1969.

The renowned capitalist supported the assistance of economies abroad, arguing that it would create customers for American products.

Under his leadership, Chase was the first US bank to open offices in the Soviet Union and China.

In 1974, it was the first to open an office in Egypt after the Suez crisis of 1956.

He was also behind the project that led to the World Trade Center in New York City.

Mr Rockefeller retired in 1981 aged 65.

Former President George HW Bush and his wife, Barbara, released a statement saying they were “deeply saddened” by the passing of their “wonderful friend”.

“So many knew him as one of the most generous philanthropists – and brightest Points of Light – whose caring and commitment to the widest range of worthy causes touched and lifted innumerable lives,” the statement read.

“David was also very active in national and international affairs, and his connections and keen aptitude for issues made him a valuable advisor to Presidents of both parties – yours truly certainly included.”

The couple added that they would “surely miss” their annual visits with him in Maine.

Former President George HW Bush (R) and David Rockefeller speak in the Oval Office at the White House in this undated photo.Image copyrightGEORGE HW BUSH
Image captionFormer President George HW Bush says he was “deeply saddened” by the lost of his “wonderful friend”

Mr Rockefeller was also remembered for his patronage to philanthropy and the arts, preserving his family’s close relationship with the Museum of Modern Art.

His private art collection was once valued at $500m (£404m).

On his 100th birthday in 2015, he donated 1,000 acres of land next to a national park to the state of Maine.

His charitable service earned him a Presidential Medal of Freedom, the country’s highest civilian honour, in 1998.

He had six children – David Jr, Richard, Abby, Neva, Margaret and Eileen – with his wife Margaret (nee McGrath). She died in 1996.

Posted in Cold War - WW III, Economy, Peace, Politics | Leave a comment

Mainstream Media in Total Collapse

 

Paul Craig Roberts,

Few any longer believe the “mainstream media,” that is, the presstitutes. This has put them into a panic as the presstitutes lose their value to the ruling elite if the presstitutes cannot control the explanations in order to justify the self-serving agendas of the ruling elite.

To fight back against the alternative media that does tell the truth, a secret group, PropOrNot, as well hidden as an offshore money-laundering operation, published a list of 200 websites accused of being “Russian agents/dupes.”

PropOrNot’s effort to discredit truth-tellers was hurt by the site’s anonymity.

Consequently, the next list appeared on the website of the Harvard University library, where it is attributed to a Melissa Zimdars of whom no one has ever previously heard. The websites on the list are also on the PropOrNot list, but those of us on Zimbars’ list are no longer “Russian agents/dupes,” merely purveyors of “fake news.”

None of my readers agree that I provide fake news. Indeed, when I tried to retire, my readers demanded that I continue providing them with reliable information as they understand that the presstitue media consists of lies.

Now I hear from bloggers in France that the French newspaper Le Monde has posted a list of conspiratorial news sites, and, yes, French sites that translate and post my columns in the French language are on the list.

It appears that the campaign against truth is being extended to the entirety of the American Empire.

Just as the Washington Post and the Harvard Library made themselves look ridiculous and had to put some distance between themselves and the lists that they publicized, Le Monde will also. Not only was I a columnist for leading French newspapers, such as Liberation (Paris) in the late 1980s and for Le Figaro (Paris) in the early to mid-1990s, but also I was awarded the French Legion of Honor by the President of France in 1987. The honor was personally presented to me at the French Embassy in Washington, D.C., by the French Minister of Economics and Finance, and later Prime Minister, Edourad Balladur, at a grand party at which top level Reagan Administration officials attended bearing a letter from the President of the United States congratulating France for recognizing my contributions.

That Le Monde would post such a list proves the truth of Udo Ulfkotte’s statement in his well known book that there is no significant journalist anywhere in Europe that is not on the CIA payroll.

I have wondered if the PropOrNor list was a creation of the presstitute media, such as CNN, New York Times, Washington Post, NPR, MSNBC, in order to protect their monopoly over explanations, or whether it was a creation of the CIA in an effort to protect the presstitutes who serve the CIA by controlling the explanations that gullible and ignorant people receive. I suspect that the list is a creation of the CIA or the Department of State. It is a desperate act by those who have lost credibility to keep control over explanations.

The world of lies that comprises life in the Western world and hides reality from the people has destroyed all justification for the West’s long hegemony over humanity. Today the West, corrupt, violent, greedy beyond all measure, evil beyond Satan, is a collection of populations comfortable with the mass murder of millions of Muslims in many countries. When evil can go without challenge, what hope does humanity have?

The Harvard Library website, perhaps in response to criticism, has now identified Melissa Zimdars as an assistant professor of communication at Merrimack College. The library distances itself from the list by declaring it to be “an informal list.” The library still has a link to Zimdars’ list of fake news websites, but the link opens to something else. Stephen Lendman provided a copy of Zimdar’s list on Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca/harvards-fake-guide-to-fake-news-sites-americas-21st-century-index-librorum-prohibitorum/5579697. Notice that WikiLeaks is on Zimdar’s list, which shows Zimdar’s absurdity. WikiLeaks posts no commentary or news, only vetted documents. Here is Zimdars’ list:

21st Century Wire
Activist Post
Antiwar.com
Before Its News.com
Black Agenda Report
Boiling Frogs Post
Common Dreams
Consortium News
Corbett Report
Countercurrents
CounterPunch
David Stockman Contracorner
Fort Russ
Freedoms Phoenix
Global Research
The Greanville Post
Information Clearing House
Intellihub
Intrepid Report
Lew Rockwell
Market Oracle
Mint Press News
Moon of Alabama
Naked Capitalism
Natural News
Nomi Prins
Off-Guardian
Paul Craig Roberts
Pravda.ru
Rense
Rinf
Ron Paul Institute
Ruptly TV
Russia-Insider
Sgt Report
ShadowStats
Shift Frequency

SJLendman.blogspot.com – my alma mater (Harvard) recommends avoiding my writing; new articles posted daily; featuring truth-telling on major issues

Solari
Sott.net
South Front
Sputnik News
Strategic Culture.org
The Anti-Media
The Duran
The Intercept
The People’s Voice
The Saker
The Sleuth Journal
Third World Traveler
Voltairenet
What Really Happened
Who What Why
WikiLeaks
Zero Hedge

Comment:

Congratulation Paul Craig Roberts.
You seem to live your senior years in full balance: Body, Soul and Spirit
Furthermore, in full feedback balance between: will, feelings and thinking.

Your serene smile holding the two cats indicates to me, that you can survive to 120 years of age, the limit Yehovah the Creator, gave to Noa and his surviving boat refugees, after the Atlantis Tsunami.

The World needs your bold truths behind the Internet keyboard and WWW outreach!
Ove Svidén

Posted in Communicate, Economy, Education, Humankind, Paul Craig Roberts, Peace, Politics | Leave a comment

UN: Israel has established an apartheid regime

Israel Owns the UN as well as the US

Paul Craig Roberson

http://www.globalresearch.ca/i-stand-by-my-assessment-that-israel-is-committing-the-crime-of-apartheid-head-of-un-body-resigns-following-pressure-from-un-secretary-general-guterres-to-withdraw-critical-report/5580538

In his book Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid published 11 years ago, President Jimmy Carter raised the question whether Israel had stolen Palestine and excluded the rightful residents from their homeland.

On March 15 UN Under-Secretary General and director of the UN’s West Asia Commission Rima Khalaf published a UN report that also concludes that “Israel is committing the crime of apartheid.” By Friday March 17, Israel’s puppets, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, had forced Under-Secretary General Khalaf to resign.

The report won’t be up long. Read it while you can before it is taken down:

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:495at1dGYisJ:https://www.unescwa.org/sites/www.unescwa.org/files/publications/files/israeli-practices-palestinian-people-apartheid-occupation-english.pdf+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk

Executive Summary
This report concludes that Israel has established an apartheid regime that
dominates the Palestinian people as a whole. Aware of the seriousness 
of this allegation, the authors of the report conclude that available evidence
establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that Israel is guilty of policies and 
practices that constitute the crime of apartheid as legally defined in 
instruments of international law.
The analysis in this report rests on the same body of international human rights
law and principles that reject anti-Semitism and other racially discriminatory
ideologies, including: the Charter of the United Nations (1945), the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights (1948), and the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (1965). The report relies for its
definition of apartheid primarily on article II of the International Convention on the
Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid (1973, hereinafter the
Apartheid Convention):
The term “the crime of apartheid”, which shall include similar policies and practices of
racial segregation and discrimination as practiced in southern Africa, shall apply to…
inhuman acts committed for the purpose of establishing and maintaining domination by 
one racial group of persons over any other racial group of persons and systematically
oppressing them. 

 

Posted in Cold War - WW III, Peace, Politics | Leave a comment

Will Trump also expand CIA-NATO wars in the Middle East?

Trump – clarification?

Two months after his arrival at the White House, the President of the United States, Donald Trump, will have to clarify his position in terms of his predecessors’ plan to remodel the Greater Middle East. If he really wants to put an end to jihadism, he will have to recognise the resilience of Syria and reposition the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

 | DAMASCUS (SYRIA)  

+
JPEG - 40.6 kb
After having proferred a few hasty comments about a number of military questions, President Trump left it to his Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, to handle all the strategic and tactical aspects. The White House will specify the objectives and the political means, and the Pentagon will be given free reign concerning their implementation. This distinction between politics and the military did not exist in the Obama administration – the Pentagon had to submit all lethal action to the White House.

As soon as the new Secretary of Defense, General James Mattis, had been nominated, President Donald Trump asked him to prepare plans which would enable him not simply to displace the jihadists here or there, or to rely on some and not on others, but to eliminate them all.

During his speech before Congress, on 28 February, he confirmed that his objective was to put an end to «radical Islamic terrorism». In order to avoid errors of interpretation, he pointed out that both Muslims and Christians were victims of this form of terrorism. His position is therefore not aimed against Islam itself, but against the political ideology which uses Muslim references.

It would seem that the US chain of command will soon be rectified. Once the objective and the methods have been decided by President Trump, the military will be given free reign to lead the operation as they see fit. Responsibilites will therefore be shared in advance – the Pentagon will have to assume any blunders, and the White House will have to answer for any defeats.

This is why it is a good idea to clarify as quickly as possible the position of the United States in terms of the Syrian Arab Republic. It should be announced in Washington on 22 March, during a meeting of the anti-Daesh Coalition, in the presence of the Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson. The least we can say is that for the moment, nothing has changed on this subject – at the Security Council, ambassador Nikki Haley supported yet another project for a Franco-British resolution against Syria, and collected a sixth veto from China, and a seventh from Russia.

Behind the Franco-British manœuvre of accusing without proof, on the simple basis of alleged witness accounts from the aggressor groups, Syrian ambassador Bachar Ja’afari denounced an attempt to justify régime change, and also to absolve Israël, which is guilty of possessing a nuclear arsenal, despite the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

Putting an end to jihadism would mean abandoning the joint plan by London and Washington to remodel the Greater Middle East and place the Muslim Brotherhood in power everywhere. That would be tantamount to recognising that the «Arab Springs» were nothing more than the re-run by the CIA and MI6 of the «Arab Revolt» of 1916. This would make it necessary for the United Kingdom to abandon a map that it has been developing patiently for a century; for Saudi Arabia to dismantle the Muslim World League, which has been coordinating the jihadists since 1962; for France to let go of its fantasy of a new mandate over Syria; and for Turkey to cease sponsoring their political organisations. In all probability it is therefore not a uniquely US decision, but one implicating at least four other states.

Despite appearances, this decision is a lot bigger than Syria. It could mean the end of the Anglo-Saxon imperial policy and its innumerable consequences for international relations. This is in fact the aim of Donald Trump’s electoral programme, but no-one can tell if he will be able to implement it effectively, faced as he is with the extraordinary opposition of the US elites.

As for the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, he held a meeting in Ankara with his Russian and Turkish counterparts. The participants dealt with questions concerning the avoidance of interference between the different armies in a conflict with multiple actors. Iran was not invited, considering that on the ground – unlike Hezbollah – its armed forces have for a long time been limiting themselves to the defence of Chiite populations only.

While the Syrian Arab Army liberated Palmyra once again, the contingent of US military illegally present on Syrian soil had been expanded to 900 men. It crossed the North of Syria, making itself as conspicuous as possible.

The most important practical question is what troops the United States are expecting to rely on for support in an attack on Raqqa. The Press continues to claim that the Pentagon is counting on the Kurds of the YPG, but other sources are talking about a possible reproduction of the plans for Mosul – US advisors supervising the national army.

During the meeting in Ankara, General Dunford seemed preoccupied by the foreseeable Turko-Kurdish confrontations, particularly since a part of the YPG has chosen to place itself under the protection of Damascus faced with the announcement of a possible Turko-Mongol tsunami.

At best, it will be on 22 March that we find out if President Trump accepts to admit that the Obama administration lost the war against Syria, and if he is serious when he says he wants to eradicate jihadism. And what will become of those who, for a century, were the faithful executors of British policy?

Translation
Pete Kimberley

Source
Al-Watan (Syria)

Posted in Cold War - WW III, Politics, Trump | Leave a comment