A militaristic foreign policy has real effects on
domestic institutions and poses a genuine threat to domestic liberties.
Cambridge Analytica/Facebook scandal continues to be front-page news. According
to current reports, Cambridge
Analytica obtained private Facebook data, which it used to send pro-Trump
material to targeted Facebook users. These reports have met outrage in
Washington DC. The Federal Trade Commission has opened an investigation, and
U.S. senators have called for Mark Zuckerberg, the Facebook CEO, to testify in
front of Congress.
Congress for increased oversight to prevent private companies from surveilling
people are extremely ironic given that they recently renewed a
section of the 2008 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which allows for the
warrantless surveillance of Americans. Issues regarding the appropriate use of
government surveillance are also at the center of
special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into the Trump administration.
These headlines provide an excellent opportunity to consider the
history of the U.S. government’s surveillance state, which matters for people
across the world whose liberties are at stake as government power expands.
Surveillance Origins: To
The origins of the present-day surveillance state can be traced
back to the U.S. government’s military occupation of the Philippines in the
late 1890s. Under the leadership of Ralph Van Deman, who would earn the
informal honorific of “father of U.S. military intelligence,” the U.S.
occupiers established a state-of-the-art surveillance apparatus to squash
dissent by those who resisted U.S. efforts.
After his time abroad, Van Deman returned home and, drawing upon
his experiences abroad, worked tirelessly to establish similar surveillance
infrastructure at home. In May 1917, the Military Intelligence Section (MIS)
was formed, with Van Deman at the helm.
following decades, the U.S. surveillance state continued to expand and
reorganize, resulting in the founding of the National Security Agency (NSA) in
1952. This coincided with an unprecedented expansion in the scope of government
surveillance of the daily lives and activities of American persons. The
prevalence of unconstrained government surveillance is evident in the four
main concurrent operations undertaken at that time: Project SHAMROCK and Project MINARET, both operated by
the NSA; COINTELPRO,
implemented by the Federal Bureau of Investigation; and Operation CHAOS, which fell under
the purview of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
These programs monitored all foreign telegraphs passing through
the United States and surveilled individuals the FBI deemed “subversive,” which
included civil rights leaders and anti-war protestors, among many others. This
included not just indirect monitoring, but also infiltrating private
organizations and illegal burglary in the name of protecting against “domestic
Attempts at Restraint
Turn Into License for More
of Van Deman’s vision and influence emerged in the 1970s, when the scale and
scope of the national surveillance state, and the American government’s abuse
of the power derived from controlling that machinery, were publicly revealed
due to the reporting of Seymour Hersh. The
subsequent investigation by the Church Committee revealed the extent of the
abuses by U.S. intelligence operations, noting that “virtually every element of
our society has been subjected to excessive government-ordered intelligence
inquiries.” The committee’s findings made clear that the unchecked surveillance
apparatus had unleashed an unconstrained leviathan that undermined the liberty
of the American people.
to the committee’s findings, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Act (FISA) of 1978, which was intended to oversee
and place judicial constraints on the government’s surveillance activities. The
act created the secret Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC). However,
as the revelations by Edward Snowden in
2013 made clear, these reforms were ineffective, with the members of the
security state acting with few if any real constraints on their behavior.
It is crucial to understand the origins of the U.S. surveillance
state both as an important historical episode, but also because it highlights a
broader point: a militaristic foreign policy has real effects on domestic
institutions and poses a genuine threat to domestic liberties. Many Americans
believe overseas interventions by the U.S. government protect domestic
liberties and promote freedom.
book, “Tyranny Comes Home,” we
argue that this view is incomplete, if not entirely mistaken. When a society
adopts the values of an aggressive empire, it runs the risk of adopting
imperial characteristics at home.
Let’s Discuss the
To explain why, we develop a theory of the “boomerang effect” to
understand the process through which intervention abroad increases the scope
of government power at home and erodes citizens’ liberties. Preparing for and
engaging in foreign intervention provides a testing ground for intervening
governments to experiment with new forms of social control over distant
populations. Under certain conditions, these innovations in social control are
then imported back to the intervening country, expanding the scope of domestic
The result is that the intervening government becomes more
effective at controlling not only foreign populations but the domestic
population as well. Under this scenario, preparing and executing foreign
intervention changes domestic political institutions and the relationship
between citizen and government. Domestic freedom from others’ interference and
coercion is eroded or lost altogether as the state gains power over citizens.
U.S. surveillance state clearly illustrates the logic of the boomerang effect.
The centralized apparatus of social control that the U.S. government first
developed in the Philippines in the late nineteenth century has boomeranged to
the United States, where it is flourishing more than a century later. As we discuss
in “Tyranny Comes Home,” the boomerang effect also offers important insights into other
cases, including the militarization of police, the domestic use of drones, and
torture in U.S. prisons. Ongoing foreign military interventions with no end in
sight will certainly lead to increased government power at home in the future.
Members of the U.S. government often use the rhetoric of freedom
and virtue to legitimize intervention. This supposed commitment to higher ideals
is indicated by the names assigned to the government’s actions, such as
“Operation Just Cause,” “Operation Enduring Freedom,” “Operation Iraqi
Freedom,” “Operation Valiant Guardian,” and “Operation Falcon Freedom.” Despite
this lofty rhetoric, the pernicious boomerang effect continues to operate:
preparing for and carrying out intervention abroad undermines freedom at home.
It is crucial for Americans to realize this unseen and overlooked
cost of a militarist foreign policy before it is too late and their liberties
are forever lost.
J. Coyne is associate professor of economics at George Mason University. He is
the author of multiple books, including "Doing Bad by Doing Good" and
"After War," and co-author of "Tyranny Comes Home: The Domestic
Fate of U.S. Militarism." Abigail R. Hall is assistant professor of
economics at the University of Tampa and co-author of "Tyranny Comes
ML is not exactly surprised by David Hogg's rejection of Laura Ingraham's apology:
David Hogg is predictably still calling for boycotts of Ingraham's
advertisers, calling her apology inadequate. It's a shame she didn't read your
At this point I can safely state,
without any sense of exaggeration or modesty, that if you have anything to do
with the media or politics and you do not read SJWAL, you will fully merit the
treatment that you're going to get from SJWs sooner or later. Conservative commentators continue to
demonstrate that they never learn anything from the various
defenestrations that preceded their own, as they insist on demonstrating every
single time one of them comes in for targeted public criticism.
Laura Ingraham rightly made fun of David "Totally Not a Crisis Actor"
Hogg because he's been getting rejected from various universities, then
promptly backed down and apologized when the media's little darling affected to
have gotten his feelings hurt. As you can imagine, her apology completely resolved the situation,
because SJWs always refrain
from taking advantage of an apologetic conservative rolling over and showing
his yellow belly.
Advertisers – including TripAdvisor, Nestle, Wayfair and Hulu – are dumping
Laura Ingraham after she slammed Parkland survivor
TripAdvisor will pull its advertisements from right-wing television host Laura
Ingraham's Fox News program.
In a tweet, Ingraham mocked a survivor of the Parkland, Florida, high school
shooting in February that left 17 students and adults dead. The
survivor-turned-activist, David Hogg, responded on Twitter by calling on his
followers to contact Ingraham's top advertisers. Ingraham later tweeted her
apologies "for any upset or hurt my tweet caused him or any of the brave
victims of Parkland."
Any student should be proud of a 4.2 GPA —incl. @DavidHogg111. On
reflection, in the spirit of Holy Week, I apologize for any upset or hurt my
tweet caused him or any of the brave victims of Parkland. For the record, I
believe my show was the first to feature David immediately after that horrific
shooting and even noted how "poised" he was given the tragedy. As
always, he’s welcome to return to the show anytime for a productive
What a brave opinion leader! The complete spinelessness and stupidity
demonstrated by the hapless Ingraham aside, this episode demonstrates how
fragile the Right is when it relies upon the Left's infrastructure. Even a
not-very-bright high school student can effectively take down a major
conservative media figure with nothing more than a well-targeted tweet.
there is a more important point here than the obvious question of "what
part of 'never apologize' did you fail to understand?" If you live by
advertising from converged corporations, then you can safely expect them to cut
you off the moment someone complains that you are violating the current
Ingraham's cringing self-implosion demonstrates why it is
so terminally short-sighted for conservatives to insist on continually
maximizing their short-term interests in exposure over their long-term
interests in a solid non-converged infrastructure. This is why I wouldn't accept a television show on Fox News or CNN even if
one was offered to me on a silver platter, as while such a show would be of
significant benefit in the short term, it would vastly increase my fragility,
whereas continuing to build up Infogalactic, Voxiversity, and other platforms
will likely prove more beneficial to me and many others in the long run.
have no sympathy for the talking heads who are shut down by their advertisers
or the self-published authors who are shut down by Amazon. These are known
risks and they cannot come as a surprise to anyone who has been conscious for
the last four years. While you're not necessarily part of the problem if you're
not helping build alternative platforms, you also are not part of the solution,
and can't expect much in the way of support or sympathy if you find yourself
being deplatformed in the future.
There is a fact that needs to get across to everyone.
If we can succeed in this, it will liberate everyone spiritually,
psychologically, and in large part even physically and politically.
I am about to say something that will strike most
Christians and conservatives as strange, even objectionable, at first. You will
see, however, that it is merely counterintuitive. The fact to get across is
The left is a huge problem, but it is not really the
To put it even more enigmatically, the left is the
problem, but the left is not the problem.
To put it in the more seemingly objectionable way, the
left is not the problem, period.
To explain, let’s be clear: “the left” is, in fact,
the problem in that it embodies the worldview of the society of Satan. It
results in the attempt to erect the humanistic state on the ruins of Christian
civilization in every area of life—family, church, state, education, money,
markets, banking, military, police, public services, insurance, medical,
business, infrastructure, property, etc. Everything.
So far, we are talking about a worldview and the party
(“the left,” so to speak) that embodies that worldview in general.
The great problem, however, we have got to realize, is
not the party so much as the worldview. This is not because the party
and its adherents are not wrong, devious, and destructive—murderous, even. It
is because the worldview that drives them is the source of it all, and because
that worldview is not confined within the ranks of that party. Let us be
absolutely frank, clear, and painfully honest: this worldview is the
greatest problem of all, and it is so mainly because Christians and
conservatives far too often partake of it.
If that statement provokes any significant level of
denial from you, then I humbly submit that you have not truly understood the
depths of the devious worldview of which we speak, nor the broad scope of it.
It is too easy to see ourselves in contrast with “the left” where it is
easy—transgender bathrooms, forcing Christian bakers to “bake the cake,” the
deadly socialism of Stalin, Mao, and Lenin, etc.
What we overlook are the areas in which we ourselves
already practice the basic principles and values of that very worldview:
government education, government contracts, subsidized businesses, a strong
centralized executive-administrative, central banks, fiat money, a standing
The problem here is not the left. The problem here is
everyone who says they hate the left nevertheless acting like the left. The
problem is the devious worldview of leftism among the ranks of
Christians and conservatives.
The problem is not the left. The problem is the us
acting like leftists. In fact, in some cases, it is us not only acting like the
left, but defending the principles of leftism as we do. Our side has grown so
dependent—spiritually, psychologically, materially and financially—upon acting
like leftists that we defend its principles and institutions with the same
ardor and passion we would our most fundamental religious doctrines—the
resurrection of Christ and the inspiration of Scripture, for example.
Take, for now, just the issue of government education
Christians defend the public school system, or at the
very least refuse to call it what it is: socialism. The government schools are,
by any measure by which you can measure them, the most socialistic institutions
in our society. They are socialism, root and branch.
Most Christians have no idea that such a
government-run education system was one of the key “planks” in Marx’s Communist
Manifesto. We’re not talking about the content of the education
here; we’re talking about having a government-funded education system period.
When Marx published that idea, only a tiny handful of radicals in the northeast
accepted such a view. There was hardly a public school anywhere in the U.S. The
vast majority were private and home schooled, and yet we educated our children
as well as anyone—and in many ways, far better than today.
But if you float the idea among Christians today that
public education is unbiblical and should be avoided in principle by
Christians, you had better duck immediately. You will be treated like a
radical, fringe conspiracy theorist, a revolutionary, a schismatic, a
troublemaker—indeed, un-American! It’s not that the nature of the socialistic
education system has changed, or that the principles of the Bible have changed.
It is that Christians and conservatives have grown dependent upon the system,
deeply, and they are just as invested in it emotionally as they are materially.
The initial call to repentance and change almost always meets resistance for
these very reasons. Few are the Zaccheuses in life who happily make immediate
changes that hurt them socially and financially.
Telling Christians and conservatives that they have
accepted socialism and are behaving like socialists in this area—any area—usually
strikes them as a deep offense. But it is true.
The truth, however, is that if every Christian and
conservative immediately pulled out of government schools, the system would
collapse almost overnight. If we pulled out and adamantly opposed the funding
of it, it would without question collapse immediately. In this area, socialism
would have no hold over us and be no threat to us.
And that brings us back to our point: the left is not
our problem. We ourselves are the problem, in every area where we act like
leftists. And we do. A lot.
The problem ultimately is as much personal as
it is political. The local and state levels are microcosms of the more extended
plundering that goes on in Washington, D.C., but local governments themselves
are a reflection of the lusts and corruption that local individuals choose
to allow. Local governments often suffer under corrupt officials who doggedly
pursue more money—more grants from state and Federal governments. But often
local citizens either agree with taking, taxing, and borrowing, or they are
oblivious or apathetic to it.
So here’s the hard truth: if you agree with the
appropriations (even if “only at the local level”), then you’re complicit in a
corrupt system that stretches from your heart all the way to Washington. Don’t
talk about freedom and fiscal responsibility when you make multi-million
dollar exceptions for yourself, your business, your industry, your union, your
police and fire, or your local schools. Obama’s not the problem; you’re the
problem. Until you address this problem in your own heart, you have no moral
authority to criticize people for doing essentially the same thing you do
(albeit on a larger scale and way over your head). (Restoring
America One County at a Time, 100–101)
I like and even love a lot of what I hear from sources
like crtv, Matt Kibbe, and others. But they don’t go all the way, and that is
the very problem itself. We can decry “socialism” all day long, and probably
make a good deal of money frightening people with pictures and tales of Stalin,
the trail of dead bodies in socialism’s wake, and warnings that the progressive
want to take away our guns. But it will produce nothing more than the gain of a
few celebrity producers and talking heads if we do not swing the axe at the
root of our own socialism; and we cannot swing the axe at the root if w will
not be honest about where the root really is.
You cannot escape Marx while practicing the teachings
of Marx. You cannot stop 1984’s “boot stamping on a human face—forever”
when it’s also your boot on the face of your neighbors. You cannot shelter
socialism at the foundations of your society and then pretend to fear the
results to which socialism leads.
out of the government schools, completely. Fight to privatize the institutions,
and free mankind to choose. Help other local Christians and conservatives use
their wealth voluntarily to create charitable schools and trade schools
for the truly impoverished and needy. Create private networks of help,
business, education, self- and home defense, arbitration, etc. Don’t just
condemn the left where it’s easy; sanctify yourself where it is both easy and
difficult. Free yourself from your own dependence on government and
socialistic institutions. Then start or join an effort to replace those
institutions with alternatives of liberty and charity, and work to get the
government out of all places it does not belong completely, for good, forever.
want to abolish all socialism. But we can only do so if we are truly honest
about how deep socialism runs and how much we are intertwined with it, and then
get really honest about rooting it out.
Frankly, I am awed, amazed and even embarrassed. I was
born in Switzerland, lived most of my life there, I also visited most of
Europe, and I lived in the USA for over 20 years. Yet in my worst
nightmares I could not have imagined the West sinking as low as it does
now. I mean, yes, I know about the false flags, the corruption, the
colonial wars, the NATO lies, the abject subservience of East Europeans,
etc. I wrote about all that many times. But imperfect as they were,
and that is putting it mildly, I remember Helmut Schmidt, Maggie Thatcher,
Reagan, Mitterrand, even Chirac! And I remember what the Canard Enchaîné
used to be, or even the BBC. During the Cold War the West was hardly a
knight in white shining armor, but still – rule of law did matter, as did at
least some degree of critical thinking.
I am now deeply embarrassed
for the West. And very, very afraid.
All I see today is a submissive herd lead by true, bona fide, psychopaths
(in a clinical sense of the word)
And that is not the worst
The worst thing is the deafening silence, the way everybody just looks
away, pretends like “ain’t my business” or, worse, actually takes all this
grotesque spectacle seriously. What the fuck is wrong with you
people?! Have you all been turned into zombies?! WAKE UP!!!!!!!
Let me carefully measure my
words here and tell you the blunt truth.
the Neocon coup against Trump the West is now on exactly the same course as
Nazi Germany was in, roughly, the mid 1930s.
Oh sure, the ideology is different, the designated scapegoat also.
But the mindset is *exactly* the same.
Same causes produce the same
effects. But this time around, there are weapons on both sides which make
the Dresden Holocaust looks like a minor spark.
So now we have this touching
display of “western solidarity” not with UK or the British people, but with the
City of London. Now ain’t that touching?!
Let me ask you this: what has been the central feature of Britain’s
policies towards Europe, oh, let’s say since the Middle-Ages?
That’s right: starting wars in Europe.
And this time around you
think it’s different?
“the best predictor of future
behavior is past behavior” somehow not apply to the UK?!
Let me also tell you this:
when Napoleon and Hitler attacked Russia she was undergoing deep crises and was
objectively weak (really! research it for yourself!). In both cases
Russian society was deeply torn by internal contradictions and the time for
attack as ideal.
So I ask
this simple question: do
you really want to go to war against a fully united nuclear Russia?
You think that this is hyperbole?
The truth is that the situation today is infinitely worse than the Cuban
missile crisis. First, during the Cuban missile crisis there were rational
people on both side. Today there is NOT ONE SINGLE RATIONAL PERSON LEFT
IN A POSITION OF POWER IN THE USA. Not ONE! Second, during the
Cuban missile crisis all the new was reporting on was the crisis, the entire
planet felt like we were standing at the edge of the abyss.
Today nobody seems to be aware
that we are about to go to war, possibly a thermonuclear war, where casualties
will be counted in the hundreds of millions.
Because the people of the West have accepted, or don’t even know, that
they are ruled by an ugly gang of ignorant, arrogant psychopaths.
At the very least this
situation shows this:
Representative democracy does
The rule of law only applies
to the weak and poor.
Western values have now been
reduced to a sad joke.
Capitalism needs war and a
world hegemony to survive.
The AngloZionist Empire is
about to collapse, the only open question is how and at what cost.
now they are expelling Russian diplomats en masse and they are feeling very strong and
manly. Polish and Ukrainian politicians are undergoing a truly historical surge
in courage and self-confidence! (hiding, as they do, behind Anglo firepower)
The truth is that this is
only the tip of a much bigger iceberg. In reality, crucial expert-level
consultations, which are so vitally important between nuclear superpowers, have
all but stopped a long time ago. We are down to top level telephone
calls. That kind of stuff happens when two sides are about to go to
war. For many months now Russia and NATO have made preparations for war
in Europe. And Russia is ready. NATO sure ain’t! Oh, they
have the numbers and they think they are strong. The truth is that these
NATO midgets have no idea of what is about to hit them, when the Russians go to
war these NATO statelets won’t even understand what is happening to them.
Very rapidly the real action will be left to the USA and Russia. Thus any
conflict will go nuclear very fast. And, for the first time in history,
the USA will be hit very, very hard, not only in Europe, the Middle-East or
Asia, but also on the continental US.
I was born in a Russian military family
and I studied Russian and Soviet military affairs all my life. I can absolutely
promise you this, please don’t doubt it for one second: Russia will not back
down and, if cornered, she will wipe out your entire civilization. The
Russians really don’t want war, they fear it (as they should!) and they will do
everything to avoid it. But if attacked then expect a response of
absolutely devastating violence. Don’t take it from me, take it from
Putin who clearly said so himself and who, at
least on that issue, is supported by about 95% of the population. From
the Eastern Crusades to the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union, enough is
enough, and the Russians will not take one more western attack, especially not
one backed by nuclear firepower. Again, please ponder Putin’s
words very, very carefully: “what
need would we have a world if there is no Russia?“
for what? The USA and Russia have NO objective reasons to do anything but
to collaborate (the Russians are absolutely baffled the fact the leaders of the
USA seem to be completely oblivious to this simple fact). Okay,
the City of London does have a lot of reasons to want Russia gone and silent.
As Gavin Williamson, the little soy-boy in charge of UK “defense”, so elegantly
put it, Russia should “go
away and shut up”. Right. Let me tell you – it ain’t
happening! Britannia will be turned into a heap of radioactive ashes long
before Russian goes away or shuts up. That is simply a fact.
What baffles me is this: do
American leaders really want to lose their country in behalf of a small nasty
clique of arrogant British pompous asses who think that they still are an
Empire? Did you even take a look at Boris Johnson, Theresa May and Gavin
Williamson? Are you really ready to die in defense of the interest of
I don’t get it and nobody in
Yeah, I know, all they did is
expel some diplomats. And the Russians will do the same. So
what? But that’s missing the point!
LOOK NOT WHERE WE ARE BUT
WHERE WE ARE HEADING!!
You can get 200,000 anti–gun (sigh, rolleyes) protesters in DC but
NOBODY AT ALL ABOUT NUCLEAR WAR?!
What is wrong with you people?!
What happened to the West where I was born in in 1963?
My God, is this really the end of it all?
Am I the only one who sees this slow-motion train-wreck taking us all
over the precipice?
If you can, please give a reason to still hope.
Right now I don’t see many.
PS: yes, I know. The rules of
the blog prohibit CAPS as this is considered shouting. Okay, but this
time around I AM TRYING TO SHOUT! So, for this one time only, feel free
to use caps if you want. The world badly needs some shouting right now,
even virtual shouting.
original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC
under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0).
Aldous Huxley's Brave New
World appeared in 1932. Everyone at that time was
dazzled by the technocratic skills of the Ford Motor Company, able to turn
out identical cars by the millions on highly efficient assembly lines. In
Huxley's novel, the calendar counts years A.F. – After Ford – and God's new
name is Ford.
The zeitgeist was obsessed with control. Ideologues liked
the possibility of more precise social engineering. Communists in
particular were focused on planned societies and central economies, with
super-smart experts sitting around a table and deciding what every citizen
could do and could not do. Psychiatrists likeIvan Pavlov wanted
to show how drastically you could manipulate cognition and personality.
Aldous Huxley devised a single beautiful image for capturing all
of these hopes and fears: a hi-tech assembly line where infants were
manufactured to specification. In particular, oxygen levels were adjusted
to create babies of very low, low, medium, and very high intelligence.
This image, this metaphor, was stunning in its concreteness. A huge
industrial operation, all clean and shiny, all stainless steel and glass, did
what nobody had thought of doing before: control human intelligence in embryo.
It turns out there is an activity in the real world, in real
society, that is exactly parallel. That was the creation of readers to
order. By the simple device of depriving some children of certain key
information, they were stunted, no longer able to become professors, more or
less predestined for low-level jobs.
As Huxley in the year 1931 was doing the final edit on his book,
this country's Education Establishment built a new sort of assembly line
for producing flawed children. Instead of withholding oxygen, this
factory withheld the alphabet. Parents were told that the ABCs are not
essential and could be ignored. As one famous expert
announced dogmatically, "[c]urrent practice in the teaching of reading
does not require knowledge of letters." Really?
Instead of the alphabet (twenty-six fairly simple objects that can
be memorized in a month or two), children in this new factory were told to
focus on complete words. Instead of memorizing B, for
example, you had to memorize BEACH. Just five letters, but a hugely
complex design – and there were more than 200,000 of them. Parents were
told their children could routinely memorize these visual designs with
"automaticity." That's like instant recall. The child was
supposed to know hundreds and then thousands of these designs with perfect
accuracy. In reality, virtually no child could do this, except the few
with photographic memories. So in practice, the factory created millions
of non-readers and weak readers.
In this ruthless new factory, the obsession with power and control
was the same as in Huxley's factory. Humans would be conditioned and
engineered to be what the controllers wanted. This creepy, highly
invasive scheme was a brilliant "success," once it's understood that
the new goal was limited literacy. Anyway, that was the predictable
result. Reading levels dropped from 1931 onward. Several decades
later, the country had tens of millions of functional illiterates. T hose are
people who memorize several hundred sight-words with good accuracy, and
probably hundreds more with medium or low accuracy. Reading as
traditionally understood – a
skill both easy and fun – was extinct for a great percentage of the
population. What this bold new factory was creating was damaged readers,
like the embryos that didn't get enough oxygen.
This scheme was wildly improbable from the first day. What
sort of unconscionable people would dare to perpetrate it? That the
citizenry could accept it was improbable. How many semi-literate people
would the society tolerate? That so-called "experts" could put
this scheme over on the public remains unlikely to this day. It's
probably not doable unless the Education Establishment has the support of
certain unions, certain government agencies, certain foundations, certain
universities, and much of the media. There is a big silence. How
will the public learn the truth if the controllers make sure it's well hidden?
(Check the archives of the New York Times. You will not find
insight into why sight-words can be considered a dubious development.)
Hardly 20 years after the introduction of this brave new
illiteracy, the situation was already so bad that Rudolf Flesch felt compelled
to write a book explaining what had happened to the country (Why Johnny
Can't Read, 1955). Many millions of Americans felt compelled to read
the book. Almost everyone knew that something had gone horribly wrong. It continues to go
In Brave New World, the controllers are always
smugly pleased with their factory. The same sort of people seem to be
controlling K-12 education for the past century.
How do you know when a politician is lying?
Their lips move and words come out.
How do you know when the United States is at a disadvantage in a
Our diplomats and Presidents want to ‘open up talks.’
Multiple times in the past four years the U.S. has used
negotiating ceasefires in Syria and Ukraine to rearm and regroup those we’re
backing or get our opposition (the Syrian Arab Army, the Russians) to let their
guard down and then attack within 24 hours.
We’ve used the U.N. Security Council as a bludgeon to brazenly
lie about on the ground facts in Syria to attempt to save our pet jihadists in
places like Aleppo and now eastern Ghouta.
And in each of these instances the Russian counterparts have
documented the U.S.’s mendacity, patiently building up an international file of
such incidents for future use. As I’ve pointed out so many times, the
Russians rightly feel we are “Not Agreement Capable” either from a short-term
or long-term perspective.
Looks like Losing
So, why do I think the U.S. is in a losing position right now,
despite the pronouncements from President Trump and his most ardent supporters
that he’s winning on everything?
Because on the two most important issues of 2018, Korean
denuclearization and strategic arms control, Trump is ready to sit down and
talk. And we have not been willing to do that on either of these issues
at the Head of State level for most of this century, if not longer.
I wrote recently that
the Neoconservative cabal in D.C. is in its final push for war with
Russia. The catalyst, for me, was President Putin’s state of the union
address on March 1st where he unveiled new weapons that conjured up images from
the finale of Dr. Strangelove.
I said, and still believe …
The neocons are cornered. All of their major pushes to
destroy Russia and Iran and control central Asia are collapsing. The EU
is fast approaching a political crisis. The U.K. is still a loyal subject
but the White House has a cancer at its center, Donald Trump. The window has
nearly closed on regime change in Russia. In effect, it’s now or never.
And the clock started the moment Putin unveiled these
weapons. It’s not that the military and intelligence services in the U.S.
didn’t know about these systems. They did.
The embarrassing part is that for fifteen years (or more) the
neocons, through their mouthpieces like John Bolton, have argued that war with
Iran and Russia was the right course of action precisely because it was
winnable at minimal cost to the U.S.
They peddled the lie that the Russians couldn’t defend
themselves against us while our military commanders, especially one James
Mattis, argued otherwise and from a position of knowledge, not ideological
In Korea it is the Koreans themselves that are pushing for
reunification. The election of President Moon Jae-in is a testament to
that. And the rapidity with which the situation has gone from full throated
U.S. push for war and regime change to, “Hey, let’s talk about this,” has been
It means that some underlying fact has changed which precludes
the U.S. from taking the neocon approach of further encirclement and
destabilization of Russia and China.
Trump is now willing, against the advice of his inner council,
to talk with Vladimir Putin about arms control. Why? The Russians
have weapons that we cannot and will not be able to counter for a decade, if
We may have or will soon have weapon systems of parallel
aggressive capabilities, but counter systems, like missile defense and
electronic warfare, no. In fact, the Russians are most likely ahead of us
in both of those areas as well.
So, now that the neocon push for war has been outed as the worst
kind of malicious fever dream the only thing left to do is push this moment to
its crisis point and trap Trump and Putin in a stand-off that most likely ends
Remember, not two weeks ago U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley failed
to advance a total ceasefire in eastern Ghouta to save our ISIS/Al-Qaeda pet
Salafist head-choppers there before they were wiped out. The resolution
went nowhere because you can only go to that well so many times before it
doesn’t work anymore.
The hysteria surrounding the poisoning of former Russian double
agent Sergei Skripal is being used cynically to force Europe back into the fold
of the U.S.’s ambitions to destroy Russia.
Every time Haley goes to the security council with another
worthless ceasefire she is building the case for Russia’s removal from the U.N.
Security Council. Or, at least, that’s the thinking. But, if that
happens, then the U.N. is finished.
Meanwhile, as I pointed out earlier, the Russians keep making
the case that it is the U.S. that negotiates in bad faith, treats allies like
lepers and abuses its status to push for ends orthogonal to their interests.
that brings me to Germany and the Nordstream 2 pipeline, Russia’s next weapon
in its war with the U.S. U.S. lawmakers are apoplectic that this pipeline
is getting built. Just this morning Germany
issued the permits to allow its construction over the most
strenuous objections from the U.S.
More sanctions are being threatened, assets frozen. More
pressure will be placed on Denmark to not issue the permit. But
Nordstream can be re-routed around Danish waters if need be for a small
cost. So, with Germany’s permit Nordstream 2 is, for all practical
intents, a go.
Lastly, China’s yuan-denominated oil futures contract (which is
convertible to gold, FYI) began trading on Sunday evening and the initial
volume was impressive to say the least. With China becoming the world’s
largest importer of oil and the need for an oil futures benchmark in something
other than light sweet crude, the challenge posed by this contract to the
pricing of oil to the current petrodollar system is real.
And this will play into any and all trade negotiations between
Trump and Jinping over the next year. The goal of this contract is not
only to remove unnecessary friction from oil pricing but also to put pressure
on Saudi Arabia to un-peg the Riyal from the U.S. dollar and accept Yuan as
payment for the significant amount of oil they sell China.
You will know in the next few months just how much this new
weapon is forcing change by how willing the U.S. is willing to cut deals on
We’re approaching the crescendo of Trump’s ‘Crazy Ivan’ ploy to
exert maximum leverage in a number of areas including foreign policy and
trade. I believe the neoconservatives are worried he will not cut
acceptable deals in the end, because they know his hand is poor.
Therefore, the big bluff he’s trying to execute will be
called. This is why they are pushing for war so badly. And this is
why he’s willing to go along with them, they are handing him leverage that he
Unfortunately, Putin doesn’t bluff. And for a bully like
Trump, losing is not an option. Lying our way into war is a time-honored
U.S. Presidential tradition. Is this time different? The world
things happen in East and Central Europe that get little mention from media
outlets. Two heads of state, the PMs of Slovenia and Slovakia, resigned almost
simultaneously. Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico was a victim of the scandal
over the murder of Jan Kuciak, a journalist who was investigating government
corruption. The PM had to step down amid mass street protests.
Fico was known for his support of a stronger Visegrad Group. He opposed
Brussels on many issues. It’s worth noting that he called
for lifting sanctions and improving relations with Moscow. The
PM was adamant that Russia was a reliable energy partner.
Is it a coincidence that he was forced to resign amid the anti-Russia campaign
triggered by the Skripal case and other obviously
concocted stories used as false pretexts for incessant attacks on Moscow?
Wasn’t he a threat to the so-called unity of the EU against Russia? He
According to Foreign
Minister Miroslav Lajčák, “George Soros is a man who has had a major
influence on the development in Eastern and Central Europe and beyond. That is
a fact that cannot be questioned.” PM Viktor Orbán had this say about the
event: “George Soros and his network are making use of every possible
opportunity to overthrow governments that are resisting immigration.”
PM Miro Cerar was attacked by Soros for his
opposition to the EU policy on immigration. George Soros did
not hide the fact that he was an ardent opponent of Miro Cerar’s
stance. “It is an obligation for Europe to receive migrants,” the US
financier lectured Europeans.
Now the PM has to go, after the results of a referendum on a key economic
project were annulled by the top court and the media attacks on his stance
regarding asylum seekers intensified. With Cerar no longer at the helm, the
opposition movement to Brussels’s dictatorship has been weakened.
next? Probably Hungary, which has become a target for Soros’s attacks.
The American billionaire has invested more than $400 million into his native
country since 1989. He has also announced his intention to influence the
Hungarian election campaign and has employed 2,000 people for
that purpose. The government wants its “Stop Soros” bills to
become laws. No doubt Hungary will come under attack for opposing the
Brussels will raise a hue and cry, criticizing the “undemocratic
regime” ruling the country. The next parliamentary elections in Hungary will be
held on April 8, 2018. It’ll be a tough fight to preserve independence while
fending off attempts to impose US pressure through Soros-backed NGOs and
activities are also being resisted in
the Czech Republic. Czech President Milos Zeman has accused the groups
affiliated with Soros of meddling in his nation’s internal
affairs. The financier is urging the EU to lean on Poland and
compel it to “preserve the rule of law.”
Macedonia, is also resisting the
billionaire-inspired subversive activities that have an eye toward regime
change. The “Soros network” has great influence on the European Parliament and
other institutions. The scandalous list of Soros’s allies
includes 226 MEPs out of 751. Every third member — just think about that!
If that isn’t corruption then what is? The lawmakers being swayed from abroad
dance to Soros’s tune. They do what they are told, which includes whipping up
has its own history of dealing with the Soros network. In 2015, George Soros’s
Open Society Institute was kicked out of
that country as an “undesirable organization” that was established to boost US
It would be really naïve to think that
Soros acts on his own. It’s an open secret that the US government flagrantly
meddles in other countries’ internal affairs using the billionaire as a
vehicle. Europe is an American competitor that needs to be weakened.
USAID and the Soros network often team up in pursuit
of common objectives. In March 2017, six US senators signed a letter asking
the State Department to look into government funding of Soros-backed
organizations. But those efforts went nowhere, Foggy Bottom is always on Soros’s side, whatever
Many European countries are engaged in
a fierce battle to protect their independence. The financier’s “empire” is
chomping at the bit to conquer Europe by means of bribes and subversive
NGOs. These countries and Russia are resisting the same threat. Perhaps
that’s why the sanctions against Russia are so unpopular among
many East European politicians.
© 2018 Strategic Culture Foundation