Our fear is killing us

Before we begin today’s commentary, I want you to listen to a part of the below linked video and let me know what you think. This video

https://ccisf.org/videos/

was produced by a group that says it wants to improve US-Russian relations. Start at minute 30 and listen to this man’s suggestions for improving US-Russian relations.

Then please send me your thoughts on the following:

In your opinion, does this man have a sensible idea for how to improve Russian-US relations?

Does he understand Putin, his philosophy and his MO? That is, does he have reasonable expectations for Putin based on what you know about Putin? (I am assuming most of you have read my articles on Putin and Russia here, hereherehere and elsewhere. If not, it would be good to read some of this before responding).

Keep in mind that the group that posted this video has the avowed goal of making Russians and Americans understand each other. Earlier in the video the speaker says he does not like Putin. Do you think the Russian people will sympathize with this man because they too have misgivings about Putin or do you think Russians generally like Putin and will be put off?

I will appreciate your taking the time to respond to at least part of this.

We have various groups that say they want to end war. I wanted you to see what some of these groups are doing so that you can assess their work and their approaches to the problem they are attempting to solve.

I would prefer if you would take the time to provide your answer below at the forum, but you may also write me directly. Thank you!

Don Hank

Now back to today’s business:

Our fear is killing us:

by Don Hank

Let me start off with an anecdote. Today I was walking in our neighborhood with my wife when a young dog, an obviously very playful and gentle female, came up to us and started rearing up and putting its paws on our legs to be petted. I petted its head and fell in love with it right away. But my wife started getting nervous and declared “I’m afraid it will bite us.” What was the source of her irrational fear? She had heard the old myth that if an animal smells your fear, it will attack you. Try as I might, I could not calm her or convince her that this myth does not apply to gentle dogs that do not bite.

This encounter with the gentle dog reminded me of Westerners and their irrational fear of Russia, Assad, Iran, all far-away places that we are supposed to fear and hate and that we are trying to destroy because of the fear ginned up daily by the press and the political class.

The following email from our friend JB is a clue as to why Trump is even more dangerous than GW Bush.

My email correspondent JB, a staunch fiscal conservative with a Master’s from a prestigious university, would agree that the msm are not reliable. But now Trump is president, and Trump is in agreement with the same msm that falsely accused him of being a Kremlin spy, so his followers now suddenly believe the press. This kind of thinking would seem silly to any unbiased rational person. But many Americans do not question the leaders we have chosen. To do so would be embarrassing and make us feel guilty. So we blindly let the tail wag the dog, and pray.

Why do we do this? In fact, both sides focus on their evidence, but this exchange with JB shows that evidence is not the issue here. The real issue is found in the fields of anthropology and mass psychology – that is, the mindset of the average American and what makes him tick.

The most solid evidence that the US citizen lets the tail wag the dog is the fact that after Donald Trump sided 100% with the Establishment, the US people kept siding with him thinking that they were being anti-Establishment. In fact they were now being Trump Establishment, of course. No different from the run-of-the-mill Establishment.
They were in fact suffering from a bad case of group-think, and what they believed to be thought processes were nothing more nor less than a monkey-see-monkey-do slave mentality. They were looking over their shoulders to see what other “anti-Establishment” people were doing and saying, and they were imitating them as best they could – for warmth, the same reason cows huddle together in the winter time. For the most part, they simply let Trump do the leading and switched off their brains. After all, they shallowly reasoned – if it could be called reasoning – since Trump has proven himself as the anti-Establishment leader, then we can trust him (OMG!). Yet Trump had never been a political leader before he began siding with the Establishment that he claimed to oppose. He had been a candidate. Candidates are not leaders. They are just basically car salesmen, some selling decent cars, some selling lemons. They become leaders only once they assume the presidency. But once Trump entered the White House, he almost immediately switched sides and let the Neocon / Neoliberal Establishment lead HIM. Now he is clearly selling lemons and the public is buying them without question.

Tragically, very few noticed this, and aside from a few bloggers like myself, who are not ambitious to land important positions in msm or politics, no one has any interest in exposing the ugly reality. Only by following and supporting a powerful movement can an activist succeed in the West-osphere In fact, let me tell you something personal.

Two writers and activists, who purport to be in favor of getting along with the Russians recently contacted me and complimented me on my work. But I noted that they only praised me for forwarding the work of other authors, never my own personal writing. I admit, I am utterly incendiary and no one knows what to do with me (because, while my writing often stings, I carefully document everything I say). Few up and coming Western activists or authors would dare quote me (though I often see the ideas expressed at my humble web site finding their way into their writings). Their narrative is that I am too pro-Russian, and on top of that, pro-Assad and, —gasp!—pro-Iran! But our president has commanded us to hate and fear Iran. So I am dangerously out of step and for now they won’t touch me. Eventually, they will cautiously let me know I was right, but only after the current administration has led them over the cliff and it becomes fashionable to disagree with Trump.

Therefore, the legions who are currently following Trump into WW III would not dare express support for my opinions. Not yet.

But who loses here? Is a warmonger who fails to see the risk of provoking a nuclear power not the real danger and not a little guy with no skin in the game who is only trying to warn America of a grave danger?

I guess WW III is no big deal. I have even had close friends tell me that human beings have no business trying to prevent wars using reason because – are you ready? – only God makes wars and only government “experts” are qualified to discuss war-related issues in detail. I kid you not. I have been told that by friends!

This commentary is a hard lesson in American anthropology. And this is one very important reason why more than 50% of Americans now agree with Trump’s attack on the Shayrat airbase, despite the fact that no investigation was conducted – or even called for – by the administration. We watched GW Bush do the same sort of thing in Iraq, we saw it fail catastrophically in the long run, and yet, it is the adrenaline rush, the emotion of the moment, and the desire to please powerful people who are in fact our enemy, that drives us. No rational considerations need apply. So what are the chances now of us shaking off our emotion-induced stupor and realizing that we are buying one more lemon from the car salesman-in-chief du jour? Does America stand a chance? Well, perhaps about as much chance as we have of the FED and Congress spontaneously ending deficit spending before we fall over the debt cliff. America – both official and private – is a creature of habit, and so far shows no sign whatsoever of abandoning ingrained deadly habits. It is my humble conclusion that any change in our thinking must come from outside the country. The US is not yet capable of governing itself.

Advanced Putinology (Westerners REALLY don’t know Putin!)

MORE Putinology (Westerners really don’t know this guy!)

by Don Hank

I recently sent the following commentary and link to a Sergey Lavrov speech to a small reader group:

The anti-Russian hysteria is so thick these days that even Russophiles are laying low. They’re waiting for the Trump administration to end so that they don’t have to join in the chorus of anti-Russian jeers just to prove they aren’t helping Putin hack their neighbor’s phone.

I have not seen any signs of sanity in the West for a while, but Russia is still behaving like the only adult in the room. Recently foreign minister Sergei Lavrov gave a speech which, if you are looking for signs of rational thinking on planet earth, is here for you to contemplate:

http://russia-insider.com/en/incredible-speech-lavrov-says-new-centers-economic-power-will-end-us-global-domination/ri19331

It is a bit longish so if you’re short on time, here are the highlights:

Paragraph 4 dicusses how Russophobes have long attacked Russia for “expansionism.” But here Lavrov discusses the addition of Siberia to the Russian empire and, without bluntly stating it, he is alluding to the way the Russians accepted the different cultures in that region, in contradistinction to the brutality of the Americans who treated their native peoples as if they were lower than animals, slaughtering them when they saw fit or forcing them onto reservations.

In about Par. 15, he mentions Kissinger and how he takes into account the cultural and historical factors in relations with other nations, while others in our State Department simply rely on fire power to persuade nations to come over to our side or else. This is certainly why Putin has maintained a cordial relationship with Kissinger all these years. Many Americans tend to dismiss Kissinger as simply another NWO stooge. We simply don’t like details and nuances and are paying dearly for our lack of attention to detail.

Par. 22 or thereabouts:

The historical, geopolitical, moral foundations that shape the foreign policy of Russia are solid and constant. They set the tone of our day-to-day diplomatic efforts which, in keeping with the Constitution, are guided directly by the President of the Russian Federation.

When was the last you heard any US pol talk about foundations such as these? They can’t. A “progressive” nation is not supposed to have any such foundations. We ignore our history, deny morality, and substitute ideology for geopolitics. Our answer to any geopolitical problems: carpet bombing. If it weren’t for US firepower, we would have no friends at all.

Par. 24 or therabouts: A big truth here that America refuses to see:

ONLY through an international coalition including Russia can the growing terror threat be combated. We are doing just the opposite, inventing Russian “hacking” and smearing anyone who dares to state the truth, and Europe is now cowering before Islamic terror. America is next. Oh, but we’re now obsessing over Iran, which has never contributed one penny to ISIS and is in fact fighting it in Syria. We’ve got all that fire power but where’s the gray matter?

Par. 26:

QUOTE: The formation of a polycentric international order is an objective process. It is in our common interest to make it more stable and predictable. In these conditions, the role of diplomacy as a tool to coordinate balanced solutions in politics, economics, finance, the environment, and the innovation and technology sectors has increased significantly. Simultaneously, the role of the armed forces as the guarantor of peace has increased too.

To US Neocons, the idea that nations OTHER than the “exceptional” US (which has all but destroyed the Middle East and wiped out its Christian population) might do a better job of leading is blasphemous to the Neocons/Neoliberals who have us all in a stranglehold. The problem for them is that, while they may own the media and government, what Lavrov says here makes plenty of sense to people in other countries, who are sick and tired of being under the heel of Washington and NATO. We may have the bombs, but we have lost the propaganda war.

I received a fair amount of blowback on this commentary. Example:

This Russian government  media outlet [ http://russia-insider.com/…/incredible-speech-lavro…/ri19331 ] genuflects to Russian Foreign Secretary Lavrov, who mentions Henry Kissinger and how he supposedly took into account cultural and historical factors in interacting with other nations.

NOT QUITE: Putin and Lavrov have maintained a cordial relationship with Kissinger even though

1) Kissinger and Nixon were responsible for US bombing of Cambodia resulting in the murderous Khmer Rouge coming to power, which Kissinger and the U.S. then supported during the Killing Fields until ended by the Vietnamese army.

2) Kissinger supported the overthrow of democratically-elected Salvador Allende in Chili (9/11/1973) and the killing of thousands as  military dictator Pinochet was taking power,

3) Kissinger supported Indonesian dictator Suharto’s invasion and brutal East Timor holocaust. …

My response below.

That is all true. The reason Putin and Lavrov are friends with Kissinger is not because of what he did in the past but because he does now take history and culture into account. What he did before or how many nations and lives he destroyed is beside the point for the eminently pragmatic Russia. What he is doing NOW is trying to avoid war (because he sees that his old sneaky method is a loser and has repented) and that is all Putin cares about. Because Putin is a winner, and you can’t let anything stand in the way of winning, not even emotions. In a nutshell, Putin understands the principle of repentance and utilizes it wisely.

Who in our supposedly Christian nation really understands this wise principle?

NOTE: Putin is NOT a Westerner and does not behave like one. ONLY a tiny percentage of us will appreciate or understand this.

In the West, if a leader screws you, you hate him til one of you dies.

Not Putin. You don’t have to like this MO but it is Putin’s, it works, and you need to be aware of it.

Example: Around the start of the war in Syria, a Russian plane was shot down by the Turkish air force. Initially, Putin reprimanded and warned Turkey not to repeat this.

Erdogan did not even apologize at first. The Russian people were angry.

So Putin slapped meaningful sanctions on Turkey, notably the ban on Russians getting visas to Turkey. Russian tourists had poured significant wealth into Turkey. Now that was over. Worse, he suspended the potentially lucrative Turkish Stream pipeline project, another major economic loss for Turkey.

Erdogan felt the pain. Eventually, he apologized — REALLY a hard pill for a proud Turk to swallow!

Then a while later,as you will recall, a coup was planned in Turkey and Erdogan was targeted for removal for office. It is believed he was to be murdered.

Here is where Putin did the unexpected (if you are an average Westerner). Putin’s intel service informed him of the intended coup and Putin got on the horn and warned Erdogan. It is believed he told Erdogan that his Western partners (US and NATO) were behind the attempt. Erdogan had no trouble believing that after what the US had done to Ghadaffi, Mubarak and Yanukovich. Treachery is the name of the Washington game. The only reason any nation still deals with us is fear. Raw fear of our firepower. Not respect, not love, certainly not trust. But now the Russians are neck in neck with us in weaponry… And, er, their allies respect them.

Erdogan believed that Putin had saved his life and that was no doubt true. In so doing, Putin also gave Erdogan an object lesson in the treachery of his “allies.”

So now, as a result of the stinging treachery on the part of the allies and the loyalty of his Russian friend, Erdogan turned against the West, incl, recently, Germany, with which Erdogan is at cold war.

Meanwhile, what does one do when someone saves your life?

Of course, you treat them special, particularly if you have been unkind to them before this. Thus, Putin has persuaded Erdogan to let the US and Russia team up to provide safe haven for the Kurds in Syria, even though Erdogan hates the Kurds (Kurdish terror was a problem in turkey). Putin killed more than one bird with this stone. He managed to secure a cooperation agreement with the US, which has been snubbing him. He did so by manipulating NATO member Turkey, which is very important to US interests. It is give and take, at which Putin is an undisputed master.

As a result of this wise maneuvering, the Turkish Stream pipeline project is revived and Russian tourists are spending their money in Turkey again. The US is also forced to grudgingly admit that Putin helped keep Turkey at bay because that country has gotten way out of hand lately in its behavior toward the US and Germany.

If this is all too complicated for you and you can’t figure out what Putin is up to, don’t worry. Putin knows. He doesn’t need love, or understanding, or respect from Westerners. He’s getting plenty of those things elsewhere, where it counts.

His attitude toward Erdogan is a reflection of his attitude toward Kissinger.

No Western leader would have the motivation and the intelligence to turn an enemy into a friend the way Putin does on an almost routine basis. But consider who has the $20 trillion debt and who has almost no debt — and who goes around creating chaos that destroys nations like Libya, Syria and Kosovo while who respects the sovereignty of nations and does not meddle in their internal affairs? Since both have comparable arms at their disposal (if you consider that Russia is backed up by China), who will win?

BTW, while RT is a Russian government outlet, Russia Insider — where the Lavrov speech is featured — is owned by an American who lives in Moscow. It IS pro-Russian, however.

As for Kissinger “supposedly” taking culture and history into account, I think that is a matter of public record. Kissinger recently came out and warned the US about taunting the Russian bear. Yes, he did evil things when in office, but he has learned from his mistakes and is a whole lot smarter than any foreign service “specialist” in the US government today.

Don Hank

 

What you “know” about Aleppo is not true

Aleppo war hypocrisy uncovered

translation and commentary by Don Hank

Featured below is my translation of an article on the site of Movimento 5 Stelle (m5s), an increasingly popular anti-Establishment party which, if it comes to power in the vacuum created by Prime Minister Renzi’s resignation, is likely to take Italy out of the euro. Unlike the UK, whose leaders tenaciously still cling to the EU following the Brexit, Italy’s exit from the euro could be more brusque and throw the EU into a tailspin. Of the major anti-elite parties in the EU core countries, m5s is the boldest, most astute and most brutally honest in its critical analysis of western military and foreign policy. The article below should be book-marked for reference because it lists casualty estimates for the “good” war in Mosul and the “bad” war in Aleppo and shows that the numbers of civilians killed in US-waged wars and the Israeli conflicts with Palestine are extremely high, making Western criticism of Russia and the Syrian government look hypocritical. The article does not list the casualties in Aleppo simply because we hear or read about these every day thanks to the media dutiful reporting them in a tone clearly condemnatory of Russia (and Assad), as if only Russian wars entailed collateral damage.  This article sets the record straight, highlighting the rank hypocrisy of the US and allies.

I took the trouble to investigate independently the casualty statistics listed by Fulvio Scaglione in his article below. Here are links to 3 months of UN figures cited:

http://www.iraqinews.com/features/unami-announces-death-toll-iraq-september/

http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/un-casualty-figures-iraq-month-october-2016-enar

http://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/un-casualty-figures-iraq-month-october-2016-enar

Not all of the deaths can be attributed directly to US intervention. However, ISIS and its opponents killed a very large number of people as a result of the Obama administration’s refusal to prevent ISIS from entering the towns and cities. He did, however, provide arms to “moderate” terrorists in Syria.

While many conservatives take a dim view of the UN, this organization is the only one providing data of t his kind. Without the UN, the world would be reliant mostly on biased data from outlets loyal to the US government that caused  much of the suffering.

Sadly, from my personal association with prominent and less prominent Brexit activists I have seen that only a minority of them understand that declaring their independence from the EU is only half the battle. They seem unaware that the real enemies are the US and NATO, which constantly beat the war drums against Russia and Assad, despite their own illegal and failed invasions in the Middle East, Ukraine and Kosovo, which leave the world infinitely less safe than before their interventions.

I receive alerts from the main anti-EU parties and after reading their literature, for years in some cases, I would rank them as follows in terms of their grasp of the geopolitical reality, particularly regarding US-waged wars. From most aware to least aware, they are:

Movimento 5 Stelle (m5s) (founded by Beppe Grillo. they will field a candidate for prime minister)

Front National  (founded by Marine LePen, who is eyeing a run for president of France)

Partij voor de Vrijhijd /Freedom Party (founded by Geert Wilders, who is eying a run for prime minister of Holland)

I am not including UKIP (UK Independent Party) in this list because Brits are split on their feelings toward the Atlanticist Establishment; while UKIP was instrumental in bringing about the exit of the UK from the EU, they were only one of several influential groups in that endeavor.   I would put Nigel Farage personally high on the list, because he is in line with Donald Trump – willing to deal with, rather than demonize, the Russians and Syrians. He has in fact traveled to the US to endorse Trump. However, the Brexit groups are divided with regard to remaining in NATO. Some think NATO is necessary for “defence,” despite the fact that all of NATO’s actions in recent years have been offensive and have violated international law regarding sovereignty of states. I also am not including the AfD because there is, at this point, virtually no chance that Germany will exit the EU any time soon.

 

http://www.beppegrillo.it/2016/12/la_guerra_di_aleppo_non_e_solo_come_ve_la_raccontano.html

What they’re not telling you about the war in Aleppo

Movimento 5 Stelle /5 Star Movement   The blog of the stars

by Fulvio Scaglione for TPI

The battle of Aleppo, with the bloodshed of recent days and the terrible years that preceded them, marked among other things the collapse of the Western information system , which is almost indistinguishable from partisan propaganda at this point. Everything in the Western narrative about Aleppo smacks of fraud and deceit. Since the publication of unfiltered and unverified data provided by the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, founded and headed by an adversary of Bashar al-Assad and maintained by the British government, the word “siege” has been applied liberally for Aleppo but only in recent months, and never in the over three years that the city was attacked from three sides by rebels and jihadis, who came to occupy 60 percent of the urban territory.

But in a way, these are small details. The real issue is the refusal to confront a reality which can be summarized as: what happened in Aleppo in recent weeks is not at all exceptional. On the contrary, it is the norm of contemporary war. Don’t believe us? Then let’s have a look around. Take Mosul, the largest Iraqi city, which has been occupied by ISIS for two and a half years.

In mid-October the offensive to free it from the jihadists got underway (finally). Great fanfare, triumphant tones, exultation for civilians who “were being freed” from areas previously under the control of militants (while civilians in Aleppo who come from the neighborhoods dominated by al-Nusra Front, are not liberated but rather “escape”). Now, two months later, everything has come to a standstill and no one is talking about liberating Mosul. Not only that, the offensive by Americans, Kurds and Iraqis has been halted to such an extent that ISIS has removed 4-5 thousand fighters from the Iraqi front and sent them to retake Palmyra in Syria. Why?

The answer is very simple. The two and a half years of grueling bombing campaign gave ISIS plenty of time to organize the defenses in the city. The roads were mined or boarded up or replaced by galleries known only to the militia fighters. Some buildings were demolished to clear lines of fire; elsewhere walls were built to block the lines of fire and passage of the attackers. Finally, thousands of civilians were trapped to be used as human shields.

To be “liberated” Mosul will have to become another Aleppo: the bombings, civilian casualties, children torn apart by the strikes, and so on. There is an alternative, namely, house to house combat with hundreds and hundreds of dead Iraqis and Kurds — which has already been going on, even if military operations are almost at a standstill.

The UN Mission for assistance to Iraq (UNAMI), directed by Jan Kubis, former Foreign Minister of Slovakia (2006-2009), has made available mind-boggling data on the number of Iraqi deaths, civilian and other, of the last few months. In September, ie before the offensive on Mosul, the number of Iraqi civilians killed was 609 (951 injured); the number rose to 1,120 (with 1,005 injured) in October and to 926 (930 injured) in November.

As for the military and other combatants, the figures are: 394 killed (208 injured) in September, 672 killed (353 injured) in October, 1959 killed (and 450 injured) in November. Result? Everything blocked, meaning further suffering for imprisoned civilians in Mosul and more time for ISIS to continue building up.

Of course, nouveaux philosophes [a group similar to the Neocons in the US—Don Hank] and other clowns can harp on atrocities and human rights violations in Aleppo. But they are nothing but hypocrites. In 2004, the US Army fought two battles to “liberate” the Iraqi city of Fallujah, in fact occupied by the militants of al-Qaeda, the forerunners of the militants of al-Nusra, which play such an important role in the battle of Aleppo.

According to the independent NGO Iraq Body Count, between 572 and 616 civilians died in the first battle (April 2004); between 581 and 670 died in the second (November 2004) battle. The Americans used phosphorus arms and apparently depleted uranium. Have you ever heard of any new philosophers rending their garments over this? Do you recall Corriere de Sera [an establishment newspaper–Don] ever mentioning “slaughterhouse” in headlines about Fallujah, as it did referring to Aleppo?

 

And what about Gaza? According to the most conservative data, which are those published by the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, only 45 percent of the 2,100 Palestinians killed in the Gaza Strip during the 2014 war were real civilians and non-combatants. That’s still 945 unarmed people killed in two months of clashes.

Thus it was the very countries that now cry foul over the Aleppo operations, that block motions censure Israel at the UN.  And isn’t Gaza a perfect copy of the eastern districts of Aleppo, attacked with bombs by the Russians and by Assad’s Syrians?

And yet UNICEF has informed us that in the first six months of 2016, Afghanistan had a record number of civilian casualties: 1,601 dead and 3,565 wounded. The worst half-year since the anti-Taliban invasion in 2001. According to UN estimates, 60 percent of Afghan civilians are vulnerable to attack by the Taliban and other insurgent groups and criminals.

But 40 percent of 1,601 deaths is still 640 deaths, or 640 innocent Afghans killed in six months (more than 3 per day) by troops arriving from our countries, that is, by those who are supposed to be protecting and “liberating” them. But everyone is silent; these dead do not deserve the indignation reserved for the dead of eastern  Aleppo.

Thus the war of our times is utterly disgusting. Those who pretend to believe that in Chechnya and Aleppo different things were done than elsewhere, for example in Fallujah or Gaza, are quite simply lying. All of today’s wars are fought on the backs of civilians. All of them.

And in all wars, the armed men, with or without uniforms, are, at the most, collateral victims. Politicians, military people and terrorists know this quite well. So the real issue is to avoid wars as much as possible, not to pretend that there are good wars and bad wars.

(translation from the Italian by Don Hank)

 

Hoax busted: There is no US-Saudi relationship

Hoax busted: the American people have NO relations with the Saudis

 

by Don Hank

 

A Neocon article titled Analysis: Russian jets in Iran change Mideast game – Middle East criticizes the new “game changing” arrangement between Iran and Russia in which the latter uses Iran’s airport facilities as a home base for its anti-ISIS bombing missions. While the author calls his piece an analysis, it is in fact blatant propaganda, distorting the nature of the “game change” he describes.

 

QUOTE:

“…this type of change is definitely not in the interests of the US, America’s traditional Sunni-Arab allies in the region, nor Israel.”

 

In fact, the US-Saudi relationship touted by the author is not a relationship between the US people and the Saudis, although the sneaky author would like us to believe it is. We the People obviously have no interest whatsoever in a relationship that spawned the Taliban, al-Qaeda and ISIS, destroyed previously stable partner countries like Iraq, Libya and Syria and seriously threatened Egypt until el-Sisi stepped in, all of which has served only to erode US prestige and credibility in the world. The American people have, in fact, an existential interest in ending this ill-conceived US Establishment-Saudi relationship as soon as ever possible, while the financial elites, notably the Federal Reserve Board, know that the Saudis are the key to propping up a dollar that has practically no other support in our debt-based economy and government. It is known that, under the secretive petrodollar agreement between the US elites and the Saudis, the US government has promised to protect the Saudi royals and their oil fields in exchange for their charging only US dollars for their oil and buying US sovereign bonds as financial reserves, all of which have been, since the early 70s, keeping the value of the US dollar artificially high. But what is not known is how much further that agreement goes in reality, thanks to terms brokered in secret, either since the original deal or at the time Richard Nixon and King Faisal signed it. What is known, however, is that all US wars outside the New World, without exception (ie, even the Kosovo war), have clearly benefited violent and intolerant Saudi Wahhabism, but in no way benefited the US people, and this is all a sinister indication that the agreement goes much deeper than is known. Indeed, looking back over the last 50 odd years of warfare, initiated by the US on the flimsiest of grounds, Washington and Wall Street appear to have sold out US interests and even the interests of civilization itself in exchange for a strong dollar worth far beyond any economy-based intrinsic value, enabling them to “print” unbacked dollars in QEs 1 through 3 and possibly beyond without having to pay for the value thereby stolen from other economies throughout the world.

By contrast with secretive US-Sunni (Wahhabi) cooperation, the Russia-Shiite relationship brought about the first sincere attempt to stop ISIS, thereby thwarting the once unchallenged Saudi-US relationship.

The US then reluctantly followed Russia’s example by attacking ISIS in Iraq, politically unable to do otherwise but knowing that in so doing it was flirting with the possible rupture of the dollar-supporting agreement described above, and hence with financial disaster for the elites.

Further, the rearrangement of the Middle East chessboard has not only led to Russia’s establishment of an airbase in Shiite Iran but, prior to this, had led to a flourishing relationship between Netanyahu and Putin, which has benefited both countries. There can be no question that Israel-US relations are now much cooler and unproductive than Russia-Israel relations. (But remember that the US and Russia have swapped roles both domestically and in terms of foreign policy).

Thus the crucial difference between US foreign policy and Russian foreign policy is that the US has so far cultivated good relations only with one side – the Sunnis and their radical Wahhabi terrorists (posing at times as “moderates”) and also with the warlike Likud Party in Israel (instead of reconciling both the hawks and the Israeli factions that want peace) – a policy that necessarily leads to the untenable situation of perpetual conflict, while Russia has taken the broader view, trying to cultivate relations with both Sunnis and Shia, and just as importantly, with Israel, in an attempt to bring permanent peace between Sunni and Shia in the Middle East and end the Palestine-Israel conflict. (BTW, there is another unseen aspect to all of this in that many Western Christians believe – in large part under encouragement from sly Neocons – that any US attempt to bring about peace in the Middle East is unbiblical and that somehow, God wants them to support, or at least passively consent to, senseless wars in order to fulfill prophecies that carry unspecified time frames and schedules. Yet this lack of specific time settings makes these prophecies hard to pin down and makes a rigid interpretation inappropriate at best. Further, there is no biblical commandment or even suggestion that Christians are supposed to consent to or participate in wars at any time in history — the way so many of them did during the Iraq invasion, believing at first — thanks to sly propaganda efforts willingly perpetrated by fooish clergy — that this disastrous war that saw the banishment of most Iraqi Christians, was godly. Thus Christianity has been used as a tool of Satanists thanks to the lack of common sense and spiritual discernment of these pawns with little grasp of the scriptures. I showed previously how these Christians are disobeying an important commandment of Jesus).

So yes, this new Russia-Iran arrangement is not in the interests of the US if we define the US as the Neocon perpetual war Establishment (including Obama and Hillary), and it is not in the interest of the Saudi Wahhabists whose ultimate goal is the total annihilation of Shia and Christians as well as civilization as we know it. But the Saudis, with their intolerance toward people with different opinions and religions, certainly do not deserve to be given by the US, through stealth or otherwise, the green light to continue founding and funding terror groups throughout the world, whether or not their rampaging props up the greenback, because such is obviously immoral unless you are a Neocon or central banker. Thus, Washington’s oft-times schizophrenic foreign policy is precisely due to the fact that, while the elites have constantly supported the barbaric Saudi regime and its thinly veiled terror campaign (for the reasons enunciated above), the ordinary people whom they despise sense that this policy is insane and threatens civilization.

The Establishment has been playing the mischievous wizard behind the curtain. But thanks in large part to Donald Trump, and to alternative media, this curtain is now in tatters and ordinary people can easily discern the wizard and his evil machinations. Whether or not Trump wins the presidency, it is only a matter of time before the wizard’s workshop will be permanently closed down.

Making sense of the Turkish coup attempt

Making sense of the Turkish coup attempt

 

Incirlik, pron. In-jeer-lik in Turkish but generally mispronounced as In-ser-lik by US TV anchors.

 

It has been reported by various sources that US forces in Incirlik have been surrounded by Turkish troops, although some reports now say that the standoff has been resolved.

The reason for this is that apparently, the recent failed coup against Erdogan has been attributed to the US, although this is a source of speculation. Some think Erdogan (pron. Er-do-an) himself staged the coup to consolidate his power and make himself a full-fledged dictator.

But all of this is secondary to the nitty-gritty fact that the US, via the CIA, USAID, the State Department, Soros foundations linked to the government, etc, has a long and sordid history of interference in other countries in an attempt to manipulate or overthrow governments and replace them with leaders willing to kowtow to Washington and spread senseless revolutions (which essentially started with the “Enlightenment,” as discussed here). The latest example of such US meddling may be the recent Brazil “legal” coup but no one can be sure. The latest documented example is the Ukraine debacle, with Asst. Secretary of State Victoria Nuland proudly announcing that the US had spent $5 billion of your money to overthrow a stable duly elected government and replace it with fascist-friendly “leaders” loyal to the US and EU. The net effect was chaos, with Ukraine now enjoying a standard of living that has been compared to that of Haiti.

Libya was another example. Further, the war in Syria can be traced back to the Arab Spring, a project sponsored by Washington and the EU that aimed to replace the stable democratic government of Bashar al-Assad with “moderate” Islamists and wound up spawning ISIS. Though the uprising has been portrayed as homegrown, numerous foreign fighters are involved. The US-sponsored and armed Islamist “rebels” recently beheaded a young boy. That is the new “democracy” sponsored by the US. Not the best publicity for US foreign policy, although good publicity is hard to come by.

This history of disastrous US-led interference goes back at least as far as the CIA-induced coup in Iran in 1954 that unseated a very popular secularist president, had him killed and replaced with Shah Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, a very unpopular man famous for torture and murder of his opposition. In 2013 the CIA admitted its involvement. Pahlavi was eventually overthrown by rebels loyal to the Khomeini, an Islamic fundamentalist and Iran has been a thorn in Washington’s side ever since. Without our interference, Iran could be under secular rule instead of being dominated by Islamic fanatics. Only the Wahhabist Saudi Rat Pack is happy about this situation, which makes Iran an outcast.

Other admissions by the CIA include its admission, in 2000, of involvement in the Chilean coup to overthrow President Salvador Allende in 1973. The barbaric Augusto Pinochet, who replaced him, was subsequently tried for human rights abuses.

Kosovo is another example of US meddling and has produced a Muslim state where historic churches have been razed or damaged and no Christian cemetery has been left unscathed. The story is completely covered up, perhaps because the truth would be too much of an embarrassment to the Clintons, who made the decision to invade this once-Christian country and carve out a caliphate. By a twist of fate, I seem to be the only Western blogger who has uncovered these uncomfortable facts, as reported here.

All of this horrible embarrassment owes to the geniuses in the US State Department, who think they can control the world but keep winding up with unintended consequences that badly damage US relations with other countries. They are godless manipulators who keep proving the existence of God, the only thing standing between them and success in their Satanic plans.

What is happening now in Incirlik, Turkey, is another unintended consequence of US policies, in this case, the policy of “isolating” Russia. In truth, we are isolating the US, slowly but surely, as one ally after the other turns away from Washington in horror and disgust (as when almost every US ally in the world joined the

Chinese investment bank AIIB against vociferous warnings from Washington—it was a soft coup that went virtually unnoticed in the msm).

Finally, since Russia seems to have at least some involvement in the counter-coup, it is highly relevant that the US, mostly via the CIA, was deeply involved in coups and subversion against Russia, because this meddling provides a motive for the Russians to help counter this Turkish coup. Thus, even if it turns out the US was not involved, the blatant, counterproductive interference in governments throughout the world for at least 60 years, much of it aimed at countering Russian influence, has made the world justifiably suspicious of US involvement in all coups and terror events everywhere.

The CIA has not yet admitted to its involvement in the troubles in Chechnya that led to war in that Russian region, but this story is well documented and has been reported in minute detail by Zero Hedge. There are few pertinent reports in the Establishment msm, but a few have appeared, for example, here, here and here, which support the Zero Hedge report (I say that because the rabid Neocons who run the lying US media keep pretending ZH is unreliable).

Again, there is no telling whether the US was involved in the coup against Erdogan, and that is not the point I want to make.

I think it is clear that the Russians warned Erdogan of the coup attempt. You will recall that a Turkish fighter plane had shot down a Russian jet over Syria and this had led to a catastrophic rift in Turkish-Russian relations. But there was too much at stake for both parties to allow this contention to continue. Russia had agreed to lay a gas pipeline across Turkey that would supply Europe. Turkey would have had a steady income from the profits of gas sales. That deal is back on the table now thanks to Putin’s willingness to forgive.

Almost miraculously, the Russo-Turkish relationship may have been saved by some stories, whether true or false, including the report that the pilot who shot down the Russian plane over Syria was not following Erdogan’s orders in so doing but had perhaps followed orders from the US. That pilot has meanwhile been arrested, suspected of complicity with the coup. The story that the pilot was working against Erdogan is possible if far-fetched. But truth is not what matters in this case to the parties involved, which are eager to mend fences.

Like so much of what has happened in world affairs, this renewed Russian-Turkish rapport can be classified as payback for US meddling. And it could change the geopolitical landscape in ways that Washington will regret. US ally and NATO member Germany is already feeling the bite, as reported here.

The lesson, again, is that attempts to manipulate geopolitical events will always fail.

But don’t expect the Neocon maniacs in Washington to learn it.

 

 

Declassified document shows Obama DID know he was creating ISIS

Declassified document proves Obama DID know he was creating ISIS

 

by Don Hank

A recent column appearing at zerohedge.com confirmed that a tweet by Donald Trump hinting that Obama knew he was creating a terror group when he sent arms to “rebels” in Syria was on the money.

 

QUOTE:

The tweet included a link to this story that appeared on Breitbart: an account of a 2012  intelligence report from the Defense Intelligence Agency predicting the rise of the Islamic State in Syria – and showing how US policy deliberately ignored and even succored it. Secured by Judicial Watch thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, the document says it’s very likely we’ll see the creation of “an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria.” And this won’t just be a grassroots effort, but the result of a centrally coordinated plan: it will happen because “Western countries, the Gulf states and Turkey are supporting these efforts” by Syrian “opposition forces” then engaged in a campaign to “control the eastern areas (Hasaka and Der Zor) adjacent to Western Iraqi provinces (Mosul and Anbar).”

 

The author reminds us that “Western countries” includes the US.

Whether Obama and Hillary are Muslims or not is hardly the issue here. They are an important part of the Saudi Rat Pack (SRP) and that is all we need to know. If there were any justice in our country, they would both hang for treason.

BTW, a lot of hullabaloo is made over the “evil Muslims,” and Christians are some of the most vociferous in condemning all Muslims for what the Saudi Rat Pack does. I agree that Islam is not the religion of peace and that Mo was basically a fraud.

However, I have interacted with Muslims lately and am getting a much more-nuanced impression of things.

Two anecdotal pieces of evidence:

I attended a local English-speaking church on Easter Sunday here in Panama, and after the service they offered free food in the church basement. We sat at a table with a guy who turned out to be Indonesian, a really nice, respectful guy who had taken part in the service. When he told us where he was from, I said aren’t you folks Muslims? He smiled and said they were. My family and I gathered that he was admitting that he was a Muslim, and for me that was no surprise. I had lived in Asia for over 3 years and had made friends and acquaintances there. I learned early that Southern Asians are open to various religions and can confess more than one religion. In fact, the Buddhists believe that there are 5 great religions and Christianity is one of them. They deeply respect Christianity. Sounds insane to most Westerners, but that is how they are.

So I told the young Indonesian Muslim church goer that I had understood that Indonesian Muslims are different from their Middle Eastern brothers. He was quick to let me know that his countrymen want nothing to do with the Saudi violence and intolerance. He was definitely sincerely incensed about this and about the fact that people might mistakenly think his countrymen might largely sympathize with radical Islam. He said there was only one small region in Indonesia where the Muslims were radical like the Saudis.

The next piece of evidence came in today. I was seated in a lounge area of a large department store waiting for my wife and daughter to finish spending their money and noticed a gent sitting beside me who was looking about as bored as me and we struck up a conversation. He turned out to be an Albanian, one of 2 diplomats opening an embassy in Panama, and he had lived in Kosovo. Many of you know that I have written a piece on Kosovo, mostly a translation about the horrors that Serbs face there. He did not deny that this had happened in the past but said that the Serbs had really abused the Albanians for years. He pointed out that over 100 years ago, Serbia had tried to illegally annex Albanian territory. I told him I didn’t think any of that justified mistreating Serbs in Kosovo, but I saw he was not to be persuaded, so I decided to change the subject a bit and told him I had heard that the Saudis had sent money to Kosovo after the war was over.

He said that Kosovars do not like Saudi interference and that he knew they were causing trouble in Kosovo.

I was shocked to hear that he and I could agree that the Saudis were behind much of the mischief in the Middle East. In fact, he was clearly disgusted by it. He insisted that no one wants terrorism (meaning Muslims) and he sounded sincere.

Clearly the Islamic world is not a monolith and we owe it to ourselves to learn from individuals like my Indonesian and Albanian friends.

I had noticed a while back that there are certain groups of people who want us to believe that Muslims are all cookie cutter copies of each other, and what I noticed about these folks is important, so please pay attention:

These folks who want us to hate ALL Muslims are by and large Neocons. Now why would the Neocons want Americans to simply hate all Muslims and not just terrorists and potential terrorists?

I cannot say for certain, but I suspect that this is because it is easier to convince Americans of the righteousness of a misguided military action by the Pentagon if the target audience of the war propaganda is a bunch of cattle who accept the notion that all Muslims are equally evil and represent an unnuanced homogeneous group. They could use this excuse to take out any leader, such as Ghadaffi, Mubarak, Saddam, and of course, Assad.

I strongly suspect this slyly implanted idea that all Muslims are evil is what is motivating many Americans to support US military engagements that, without the blanket hatred of all Muslims, would make no sense. Indeed, I have read opinions critical of Assad based on the fact that he is a Muslim and therefore is evil and not worthy of consideration. The people who expressed this opinion did not seem to care that if the US takes him out, he will be replaced by ISIS. To them there is no difference between ISIS and Assad. They are tragically wrong. Assad belongs to a subgroup of Shia Islam that is almost perfectly tolerant of other religions. Despite whatever sins he may be guilty of, he is the perfect choice for protection of minorities and has done an amazing job of creating a tolerant society in Syria. Only the made-in-USA terror groups like Al-Nusra and ISIS have changed this situation and turned groups against each other who once had learned to tolerate each other under the leadership of Assad.

I do not suspect that Trump will use hatred and suspicion of Muslims to such an untoward end. I think he was just shooting from the hip when he said we need to stop the immigration of Muslims until we can figure out what is going on.

But Hillary is another story.

Meanwhile my Albanian acquaintance was surprisingly open minded about Trump and said that Trump no doubt was not referring to all Muslims but only to people from terror-exporting countries. He said that if Trump became president Albanians would support him, but that likewise they would support Hillary if she won the presidency because her husband Bill had “helped” the Albanians in Kosovo. In other words, contrary to the doomsday warnings of both liberals and GOP higher-ups, Trump would not destroy the US’s rapport with all Muslim countries but may only sully the most radical ones, like Saudi Arabia, which is in fact the enemy of the American people and does not deserve to be coddled.

I also told him I thought Kosovo had become more unstable after the war and that NATO was just indiscriminately killing people.

Incredibly, while he disagreed on the first point, he seemed to agree that NATO was just having itself a rowdy shooting match in Kosovo!

Finally, he told me that Kosovo and Albania saved the lives of many Jews in those places. Here is that story confirmed by the Jewish Post http://www.jewishpost.com/news/Why-Albania-A-Nation-of-Muslims-Christians-Saved-Every-Jew.html.

The world is a big place and there are all sorts of nuances that we are best served to examine and try to understand. More-precise knowledge of groups of people can help both avoid unnecessary military intervention and/or make sure the groups targeted by the Pentagon and/or the State Department really are enemies and not in fact friends or potential friends of We the People. We really ought to have noticed by now that groups or nations that Washington declares to be enemies routinely turn out to be friends and vice-versa and that overly strident propaganda against anyone is generally an excuse for a needless war.

I am only just beginning to understand the Muslim world but God has allowed me to make just the kind of contacts that are helping me fill in the blanks.

 

Will Putin hand Trump the presidency?

Will Putin hand the presidency to Trump?

by Don Hank

I was invited to participate in a conversation among a group of friends who are hoping that the Kremlin will turn over their cache of Hillary emails obtained via the Romanian hacker “Guccifer” just in time to smear her prior to the November election. Judge Napolitano has stated that the Kremlin is holding these emails and is not sure what to do with them. The group was hopeful that Putin would reveal the content of this cache just in time for Hillary to be indicted before elections. Here is my reply to the group:

Yes, this could be a big deal.

But remember that Putin has an iron-clad policy of never interfering in the internal affairs of what he calls “partner” countries.

Putin must stick to this policy to avoid hypocrisy because he has publicly opposed interference by the State Department in the color revolutions, the Arab Spring and the military interventions in Kosovo, Libya, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, nations that have been utterly ruined by Washington’s intervention. Thus by failing so abjectly in every attempt at control, Washington has handed Russia a huge propaganda advantage and he will not fritter it away by imitating Washington’s interference in other countries’ politics … including US politics. It is his principle (part of what I have called the Putin Principle) to avoid such chicanery, thereby presenting a stark contrast with Washington “leaders” and in so doing – ie, by his studied refusal to interfere – letting the world beat a path to Moscow – as Netanyahu has done just this week, for example.

He must come across to existing and potential trade and military partners as squeaky clean in this regard and not be seen interfering in anyone’s business, except, for example, to be seen as protecting the lives of minorities in Syria, or of Russian speakers in E. Ukraine, who have, you will recall, been bombed from the air and subjected to murders and abuse by fascist thugs of the Right Sector who revere men like Stepan Bandera, a Nazi who aided Hitler in killing Ukrainian Poles back in the day (these openly fascist partisans march in parades with photos of these old “heroes”). Unfortunately, these lumpenproletariat are all seen as part of the US-backed Kiev government. We own them and that fact makes Putin look like a white knight by contrast. Dim-witted State Department and Pentagon officials, as well as professional Russophobes (whom I exposed recently for the phonies they are), whine that RT (Russia Today) is “Russian propaganda” and some have even suggested banning it or imposing a heavy tariff on its revenues in the US. But the reality is that US foreign policy has been Russia’s best propaganda.

You will recall that when asked what he thought of Trump, Putin’s answer was totally apolitical. He only made a vague reference to Trump’s intelligence, which was misinterpreted by Trump to mean Putin thought he was a “genius.” Not quite, but it was a nice gesture on Volodya’s part (the nickname is not “Vlad” in Russian BTW). He pointedly commented at the time “we do not interfere in anyone’s internal affairs,” a comment that went over most Western heads because most of us refuse to believe that no other governments could possibly abstain from Washington-type skullduggery. “They’re all doing it.”

Just remember: Putin’s argument is that it was interference on the part of USAID, “sandwich girl” Victoria Nuland, Geroge Soros (who admitted on national TV that he was involved in the Maidan coup — the subject of my report here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/140530) and the top “leaders” of EU countries (like President Rutte of Holland, Germany’s foreign minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, etc), who personally blundered into the Maidan deceitfully presenting the EU as a potential savior — just as the EU had done in Greece), that turned Ukraine into a showcase of grandiose failure with an economy about on the level of Haiti’s). Thus Russia, which has never bankrupted another country, is holding all the propaganda cards thanks to the endless trail of failed states left behind by the West. Putin intends to hold on to these cards. He said in his autobiography that even in his youth, he never gambled. He won’t start now.

Thus Putin must and will be very careful not to look like another meddler because he has billed Russia as the anti-meddler and he will tend this image like a gardener tending a prize rose bud. So don’t expect him to openly threaten Hillary with blowing her whistle. He can’t afford to even appear to do this, as much as he would certainly like to.

Sure, he has some sympathy with Trump, but after all, Trump has waffled on his stance toward Putin and on Syria. None of us — including Vladimir Putin, is too sure what he would do as president.

That is another reason Putin must hold his cards close to his vest — something he is very good at.

So as much as he might want to help, and as much as my email group may yearn for it, Donald J. Trump will have to find his own way to the White House.. But after all, he is a “genius,” isn’t he?

 

New details on US-Saudi deal suggest Washington supporting terrorist regime

New details of US-Saudi deal suggest Washington supports terror

 

by Don Hank

Bloomberg recently exposed the storykept under wraps for over 40 yearsof the US-Saudi petrodollar agreement under which the US agreed to use its military to protect the Saudi family in exchange for the Saudis’ demanding US dollars as payment for oil and buying US Treasuries. The US officials who disclosed this story said that King Faisal insisted the deal should be kept secret because anti-US sentiment in the Middle East was running high due to US support for the Yom Kippur War.

The fact that the Saudis insisted on secrecy in this petrodollar deal suggests that there may well still be secrets yet to be revealed.

Considering that all US involvement in wars and US support for government coups outside the Western Hemisphere since 1974 greatly benefitted the Saudis and harmed the US people (Saudi support for terror, trillions of dollars spent on wars all supporting Sunni Islamization), it is highly likely that part of this agreement – certainly an unwritten part – called for the US indirectly to help spread Wahhabism everywhere. Because this is exactly what the US government did in its foreign and military policy for over 40 years. Don’t tell me it was all a coincidence!

Recap:

GW Bush covered up Saudi complicity in the 2001 terror attacks on the Twin Towers, as reported here.

QUOTE:

Case agents I’ve interviewed at the Joint Terrorism Task Forces in Washington and San Diego, the forward operating base for some of the Saudi hijackers, as well as detectives at the Fairfax County (Va.) Police Department who also investigated several 9/11 leads, say virtually every road led back to the Saudi Embassy in Washington, as well as the Saudi Consulate in Los Angeles.

Yet time and time again, they were called off from pursuing leads. A common excuse was “diplomatic immunity.”

Bush’s Iraqi war ended up with the Assyrian Christians leaving the country in droves. They had survived 2000 years of persecution but finally succumbed to the US-Saudi-led war that installed their enemies in power. The Saudis aim to eliminate Christianity from all predominantly Muslim regions. Hence, it was a Saudi win, but, like all US military engagements outside the Western hemisphere, it was at the same time a devastating loss – in terms of money, morale and security – for the once-Christian US.

The US-led war in Kosovo converted this cradle of Serbian Christianity into an exclusively Muslim domain, where the last Christian residents, who had spent their lives there since infancy, were mercilessly persecuted and almost all Christian monuments, such as cemeteries and churches, were, and are still being, destroyed and desecrated (http://laiglesforum.com/look-whats-happening-in-the-european-region-that-nato-defended/3786.htm). Again, this debacle was a clear-cut loss for the US people but a resounding victory in terms of Saudi goals. Indeed, Saudi money was reported to have “flooded Kosovo” after the war.

US Support for the Egyptian spring was apparently motivated by a desire to establish the terrorist Muslim Brotherhood in that country in compliance with Saudi wishes. I say that because there is no way that US officials could have expected democracy to bloom in that hotbed of  Islamic fanaticism. It succeeded under Mursi until he was ousted by Al Sisi. During Mursi’s reign, Christians were persecuted. A Christian Egyptian lady I know told me her husband had traveled back to Egypt during the Mursi regime and when they asked him where he intended to visit, and he mentioned the name of a predominantly Christain town, he was unceremoniously put on the next flight back to the US. At the time of this telling, they had never learned the fate of his family. As stated above, the Saudis aim to eliminate Christianity from all predominantly Muslim regions. A major US loss, a resounding victory in terms of Saudi goals – until the Egyptian military stepped in.

Libya was run by a secular Muslim leader who established stability and relative peace among all factions including Christians. The Saudis also aim to eliminate all secular leaders, mostly because they promote tolerance of Christians and Shia. Within a year after the criminal murder of Ghadaffi, aided by US-NATO forces, Libya fell into the hands of warring factions, predominantly ISIS, which adheres to Saudi Wahhabism and is a US-Saudi brainchild. Another Saudi victory, another loss – and humiliation for We the People.

The US supports the ouster of Bashar Al-Assad, a non-Sunni (Saudi Wahhabism is a Sunni sect), who also protects the Christians in his country.  Assad is also an ally of Christian Russia, making him doubly a target of the Saudis. The US motivation is pure and simple: Keep the Saudis happy by trumping up mostly unproven charges against Assad and training terror groups to defeat him. The US slyly calls these groups “rebels” but all of them are Islamists who will introduce Shariah law and persecute Christians. Many are linked to Al-Qaeda and have also passed on US-donated arms to Al-Qaeda and ISIS.

The dogged Neocon press insists that Iran is the biggest supporter of terror, despite the fact that this largely Shiite country has never supported any of the terror groups that oppose the West, such as the Taliban, Al-Qaeda and ISIS, all US-Saudi protégées. Arch-Neocon John McCain joked that he would like to bomb Iran. The US legislature was close to supporting an Israeli bombing raid on Tehran. This would have been another black eye for the US but a resounding victory for the Saudis, who aim to eliminate the Shiite religion everywhere in the world.

US antagonism for Russia can also be seen as part of this pattern of behavior intended to keep the Saudis happy.

The above recap of US foreign and military policy is ample circumstantial evidence that the most important elements of the secretive 40 year old petrodollar agreement are not known and may never come to light.

Nonetheless, this commentary is intended to encourage research in this area to see what might still be found, for examples, in records of classified phone, mail or email exchanges between the Washington government and the Saudis, and in the memories of officials involved in past US-Saudi transactions.

After all, confirmation that the government of the largest nominally Christian country in the world has been engaged for over 40 years in aiding and abetting the most intolerant and violent anti-Christian sect in the world – ie, Wahhabism – in its quest to eliminate Christianity everywhere might be a story of some interest.

Is Dilma impeachment the result of a US-Soros-led covert operation?

Is Dilma impeachment the result of a covert US-Soros operation?

by Don Hank

The alternate news site counterinformation.com takes a critical view of the Dilma Rousseff impeachment process and its lead-up in Brazil, pointing out that it has all the earmarks of a Washington-led covert action. The cogent analysis they present supports what I have thought from the outset.

I never liked the far-left Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, whose politics are not far from those of Barack Obama. Here is an article I wrote condemning her character and politics: http://www.thepostemail.com/2010/08/29/terrorist-who-will-be-brazils-next-president-came-to-our-white-house/.

If you read that article, you will see why I condemned her. I still do.

However, now that she is being impeached, a larger issue has emerged, and that is, the meddling of the corrupt leftist Washington government in sovereign governments in a cynical effort to force its will on other peoples.

My reason for opposing this meddling is two-fold:

Firstly, the elites we summarily call the New World Order have attacked a common-sense and morally justified principle that could be called the “Westphalian principle,” described by our friend Bernard Chalumeau here. It is a time-tried principle in international law, which is intended to prevent a country or countries from overpowering other, weaker countries for their own selfish purposes. If we transposed this situation to the school yard and applied it to weaker kids being bullied and having their lunch money stolen by bullies, then no one would argue that the bully must be opposed and defeated.

But in the international arena, the elites know that they can easily pull the wool over the eyes of a public who think foreign affairs are too complicated to study and understand and who are more than willing to turn over the conduct of foreign policy  – including decisions to send our young people to war –  to an elitist government claiming to be “experts” when in fact they have little or no diplomatic skill, little knowledge of the cultures of the regions they deal with (as I pointed out here; see the heading “Culture” about 9 paragraphs from top of the article), and absolutely no moral values whatsoever. Thus they fit the MO of Neoconservatism as described by the founders of that movement, which I summarized here (has no relation at all to true conservatism but millions of duped “conservatives” think it does).

My other reason is the disastrous outcomes of US meddling in other countries, such as Kosovo, Ukraine, Syria, Libya, and others. Washington’s efforts to overthrow governments never result in the replacement of a corrupt government by a stable, viable new government and a viable economy. Entire peoples are ruined as a result. (The Western press refuse en bloc to report on the current genocide in Kosovo. Please see this report).

While my attitude toward Dilma as a president remains unchanged, I want the reader to consider the larger aspect of a corrupt hypocritical Washington government stirring up an uprising against alleged corruption in Brazil (BTW, note that Dilma was not accused of a crime).

Not 5 minutes after I posted this article, one of my researchers sent me this: 

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/11/brazils-democracy-to-suffer-grievous-blow-today-as-unelectable-corrupt-neoliberal-is-installed/ 

Looks like the impeachment is a done deal and, assuming there was US involvement, Brazil could be added to the growing list of countries ruined by US meddling. I’d hate to be a Brazilian today.

Next US president must understand the Putin Principle

The disarmingly simple Putin Principle in foreign policy

by Don Hank

One of the cardinal points raised by Sun-tzu in his “Art of War” is the proposition of knowing the enemy. I will take that a step further and say that sometimes knowing the enemy leads to the discovery that he is not the enemy after all. And one further step: to the discovery that one is one’s own enemy.

The US government is the classic example.

There seem to be an alarming number of people who actually believe that hoax email making its rounds claiming that Hillary’s emails have been hacked by Russia.

First off, the story originated with a well-known hoaxster with the pseudonym Sorcha Faal, who specializes in these Russian fairy tales.

Secondly, if Americans do not have the ability and resources to hack into Hillary’s server, how in heaven’s name would they be able to hack into the Kremlin server?

The Kremlin is not run like the Washington government. No official would dare to let down his guard enough for a Westerner to hack into Kremlin emails. The offender would not get a smack on the wrist, the way Hillary did. Russians are serious about their government. Sadly, Americans have degenerated to the extent that very few care any more or believe that any government could possibly be serious about protecting its people. Why would any government be more honest than ours?, they reason.

The whole idea behind this fake story is that the Kremlin wants to interfere in our elections.

Nothing could be further from the truth. You will recall that when Putin was asked his opinion of Donald Trump, he ventured to say that Trump was clever (Trump later expanded this compliment claiming Putin had called him a “genius”), but in his very next breath, Putin made it clear that Russia has a policy of non-interference in the affairs of other countries. He was thereby establishing an unmistakable contrast between Russia and the Washington government.

I will attempt in a few lines here to explain a somewhat complex cultural and political situation in Russia as well as the mind of President Vladimir Putin.

One of the most important things you need to know about Putin is that he is serious about government business. Unlike our demented officials, he does not play irresponsible games. I am just now reading his biography, and recently came across an anecdote about his early days in the KGB school in Leningrad, now Saint Petersburg (BTW, Putin was not a spy, but rather an intel analyst). A few of his class mates — senior classmen — were discussing a certain hypothetical order that they might receive in the field.

When it came his turn to add his opinion, Putin said “that order is illegal.” Their attitude was “so what? It is an order.”

He said, “it is still illegal.”

That brief anecdote speaks volumes about who Vladimir Putin is and why he is respected in his own country (his popularity is still in the 80% range) and. increasingly, abroad.

Now, taking this further, Putin saw many years ago that the Washington government lies and cheats. It makes its own laws as it goes and enforces laws that are not on the books. All illegal in the international sphere. (Example: James Baker promised Gorbachev that the US would never encroach on Russian borders. Once an agreement was reached with Russia regarding relations with the US, the US broke that promise, and it is still doing so, with NATO building up heavy forces along Russia’s western border). Americans have been brainwashed into believing that lawless behavior in Washington is a good thing because America is “exceptional.” But this slipshod attitude toward the serious matter of international law – which, after all, governs the circumstances that lead to either war or peace – has led to the near-total destruction of Kosovo (in case you missed these, see: http://laiglesforum.com/so-youre-fond-of-nato-eh-mr-cruz-check-out-these-videos-of-nato-in-kosovo/3690.htm and http://laiglesforum.com/look-whats-happening-in-the-european-region-that-nato-defended/3786.htm), Libya, Syria and Ukraine.

Putin discovered long ago that the US was on the wrong track and set about to develop a strategic policy for his country that would restore legality to geopolitics and so impress the rest of the world that they would eventually trust Russia more than any other country. I like to call this policy the Putin Principle. The Kremlin calls it soft power.

It is the iron-clad implementation of this simple principle that led to Russia’s policies in Ukraine (particularly in the former Ukrainian territory of Crimea) and Syria.

The Western press and political class has brainwashed an astounding number of Westerners into believing that Russia is promoting lawlessness in these regions when in fact, even in its military operations, it is respecting sovereignty of nations and ethnic groups and their territories.

The West claims in unison that the accession of Crimea to Russia was an “annexation,” whereby Russia simply snatched territory in a selfish expansionist move. And yet no serious party in this same Western world protested the referendum in Scotland or claimed it was illegal. The US and Europe were all prepared to accept whatever the outcome might be, including Scotland’s separation from the UK, based on the principle that Scotland had a right to sovereignty, even though it was technically part of the UK. And once that vote became official, the Crimean people were free to accede to Russia.

Yet what was perfectly legal in Scotland was “aggression” in Crimea, even though over 90% of Crimeans (the vast majority of whom are Russian speakers and consider themselves Russian) voted in this referendum to break away from Ukraine – and for the same reasons that many Scots (just short of a majority) wanted to break away from the UK, namely, cultural identity.

Thus, by our own Western logic as applied to Scotland, what the Crimeans did was legal and not in any way reprehensible.

Russia simply accepted the will of the Crimean people and honored their sovereignty. But of course, Russia is illegal by definition in the West.

Likewise, in Syria – in contradistinction to the US, which waded into an internal conflict without any invitation from the Syrian people – Russia entered the conflict only when the duly elected president of Syria invited it to do so. In fact, it made a similar offer to the Iraqi government but stayed out of that conflict when the Iraqis declined the offer, choosing instead to allow the US to pretend to fight ISIS there and create one of their  trademark messes.

The “exceptional” US government went into Syria illegally while Russia entered as an invited guest. The US was exceptionally lawless. Yet it accuses Russia of “expansionism,” just as England – the most expansionist country that ever existed, touting an empire on which the sun never set – had once accused Russia of expansionism during the conflict with Turkey in the 19th Century.

Thus the West has always written its own laws as it goes, based on nothing but bare-faced propaganda.

Note that Putin not only wants to apply this more-righteous and in fact, more common-sense international policy of strict adherence to international law to Russia but at the same time, to use this higher virtue as an arm of soft power by contrasting it with the West’s ad hoc law of the Wild West. He and his government, often via the mouthpiece of foreign minister Sergey Lavrov, use every opportunity (eg, UN speeches, speeches before the Valdai Club, press conferences, interviews, RT) to drive this concept home.

The American public will perhaps be the last to grasp this simple concept, not because they are stupid but because they have been brow-beaten into feeling that facing the truth about foreign affairs is somehow unpatriotic. But elsewhere, including in Europe, there are high ranking actors who seem to understand it. And they respect Russia for what must be called a superior approach to geopolitics. After all, ISIS would not be a threat if the Russian principle had been applied in the West.