The US loses another battle for hearts and minds

The US loses another battle for hearts and minds

 

by Don Hank

I never see in the media or the political world any connecting of the dots with regard to the US’s loss of prestige, and yet the ground is giving way under our very feet even as we party on into oblivion. It seems incredible to me that almost no one notices this geopolitical tectonic shift. Much of the US’s lost prestige and respect is due to Obama’s heavy handedness but after all, the US has been busy creating disasters for years — particularly military ones — that erode the trust our partners have invested in us. We will not recover this trust easily or quickly — perhaps not in any of our lifetimes.

I have been tracking this phenomenon roughly since my report on the total blackout regarding the major dedollarization effort by the Eurasians, as reported here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141009

The next major shift was marked by RMB clearing centers being built all over the world, and most notably in Europe, as reported here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141219

This got very few comments and I did  not see any indication that the rest of the Western press — including the alternative media — noticed or cared.

This was followed not long thereafter by the accession of almost all US allies to the Chinese investment bank AIIB, as reported here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150319 in another attempted wake-up call that went unnoticed.

These were followed by low-key statements by European leaders indicating that European “alllies” were no longer willing to bow to the Washington hegemon. These included statements by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the most powerful national leader in Europe and no less than Jean-Claude Juncker, the head of the EU Commission, the most powerful man in Europe, as reported here: http://laiglesforum.com/game-over-for-obama-power-in-the-world/3523.htm

These statements showed that Europe’s allegiance was gradually turning from the US to Russia. NATO’s allegiance could no longer be taken for granted.

Now still another sign appears that Europe is ready to ditch its allegiance to the tyrant in DC. The EU Parliament has recently issued a statement in support of Edward Snowden, signaling that he could soon be welcomed in the EU despite all the accusations against him by US Neocons, whom Paul Craig Roberts aptly calls “inhuman filth” because of their interventions that sow chaos everywhere.

See:

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news-room/content/20151022IPR98818/html/Mass-surveillance-EU-citizens%27-rights-still-in-danger-says-Parliament

Folks, please to not underestimate the importance of each of these small shots across the bow of the DC tyrant. They are all clear signals that the rest of the world is no longer willing to be pushed around by a government that:

1–Intentionally harmed the world economy with its subprime mortgages packaged and sold around the world under the watchless gaze of US agencies tasked with preventing such disasters

2–Intentionally threw the Middle East into near-total chaos with disastrous military interventions starting with Iraq.

The tyrant in Washington has been identified and is targeted for at least a major comeuppance that will definitely be felt as the US government falls into a deep isolation of its own making.

I fear the best we can hope for is lenience.

I will be updating this column from time to time because it is impossible to keep up with all the geopolitical shifts showing how the US is receiving rejection slips from the rest of the world:

Shift 11/3/2015:

 

Just today I saw an article in El País with an interview with Ban Ki-Moon, where he says (my translation):

“The future of president Assad must be decided by the Syrian people.”

That statement sounds innocuous to the uninitiated but it is in facta block buster because it is in fact a low-key challenge to the Washington policy that Assad must go no matter what the Syrians want, based on the highly dubious notion that the US is entitled to define morality and enforce it. It is also a perfect reflection of what Russia has been saying all long in favor of respecting national sovereignties and it flies in the face of Washington’s untenable position that the US should decide the fate of the Syrians. Washington in so doing fully intends to trample on the sovereignty of the Syrian people (just as it tramples on its own people), who have already suffered much. If anyone deserves to decide the fate of their president it is they.

Here, Ban Ki-Moon joins the swelling ranks of high level officials who cautiously oppose US policy and agree with Russia.

Shift 11/3/2015

Iraq has now effectively excluded the US from participation in military operations in that country against ISIS. Ater seeing the remarkable successes of Russia’s airstrikes in Syria, it realized only Russia will provide honest, sincere assistance in defeating ISIS in Iraq.

Is Putin a sincere Christian? The Bible says it doesn’t matter

Is Putin a sincere Christian? The Bible says it doesn’t matter

by Don Hank

If your young child were drowning in the surf and a swimmer ran toward the water’s edge to save him, would you consider stopping the would-be rescuer and asking him whether he was a Christian before allowing him to proceed to save your precious child?

Of course not. You’d allow even a dog to save the child and you wouldn’t think twice about the worthiness of the rescuer. And yet, the entire world is watching someone save Christians and other minorities in Syria and some Christians are crying “foul” because they think that Putin may not be completely sincere and therefore not morally worthy of saving them. They want only Christians to save Christians. Yet none of them is going to Syria to save these desperate people. Such hypocrisy cries out for a strong response (and even perhaps a severe lashing).

Some Americans keep insisting that Russian President Vladimir Putin must prove his sincerity. Oddly these same people never speak of “sincerity” when assessing US candidates. This is because US candidates are typically insincere and have made us cynical. Many of us assume deceit is part and parcel of politics.

I don’t know whether Putin is sincere, but as I keep saying, he does not owe us an explanation of his faith. He is a political leader of a secular government. Remember that all attempts to create a Christian theocracy have failed. The Chiliastic Christians of the Dark Ages wanted a theocracy. Thinking they were sent by God to save Europe from the autocratic Catholics and feeling called to usher in the Millennium, they massacred priests, burned churches, plundered shamelessly, and finally were subdued and their leaders executed. (I say this as a Protestant. Truth is truth. Life is not a football game where one is obliged to root for the “home team”).

How could such people believe God would bless their bloody endeavors? Such runs counter to Christ’s teachings of free-will choice, whereby each of us makes his or her personal choice whether to accept or reject Him or how to worship Him.

Putin has professed his Christianity, whatever that may mean to him. He has said that he is not publicly entering into detail about his faith because it is a personal matter. This stance is in no way incompatible with Christ’s teachings when we consider that Jesus said we are to pray in the closet instead of flaunting our faith. Why is that commandment almost universally ignored among Christians, many of whom are rushing to be seen as saviors of mankind, even starting foundations and asking shamelessly for donations supposedly in an attempt to “restore a Christian America,” something they must know they will never accomplish? Is it not in fact all about them? Do they not in fact desire to be worshiped? Yet many of these same people condemn Putin for a lack of sincerity! It often seems as if they are vying for the title of Mr. or Mrs. Hypocrisy.

The important thing is not whether Putin is sincere but how his actions are furthering God’s work. We all know how. It is obvious. Traditional Christianity — including the true definition of marriage — is flourishing in Russia and Syrian Christians are being saved from ISIS only because Putin intervened. Once any of Putin’s critics have done this much, they are free to pile on him. Otherwise they are nothing but hypocrites.

God chooses people to do His work and does not have any religious requirements for this.

Nebuchadnezzar and Constantine are good examples.

Historians are not certain whether Constantine was a Christian but he was indisputably enormously instrumental in legitimizing Christianity in Europe and elsewhere. If that is not enough, let his critics do better.

Many readers will be surprised to learn that in another woefully neglected passage, Paul taught that it does not matter whether the one who delivers Christ’s message is sincere or not.

Philippians 1:

…17 the former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition rather than from pure motives, thinking to cause me distress in my imprisonment. 18 What matter? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed; and in this I rejoice. Yes, and I will rejoice, 19 for I know that this will turn out for my deliverance through your prayers and the provision of the Spirit of Jesus Christ…

Though I can’t prove it, I believe that Putin is not acting solely out of selfish ambition. There is abundant evidence that he is working for the good of his people (as well as for a better world — a world he calls multipolar, where no country lords it over others). If the Russians had good reason to suspect otherwise, they would not have reelected him so many times. If only the West had even one leader who did likewise!

Honi soit qui mal y pense.

 

 

Are the Russians upsetting the “balance” in the Middle East?

Are the Russians upsetting the “balance” in Middle East?

 

Don Hank

 

Neocons shriek that the Shiite Assad is evil and the Neocon Obama insists that anyone messing with his Sunni pets in ISIS in Syria is “upsetting the balance” in the region. (Neocons described here).

But what balance?

The balance in the entire Muslim world had been upset since 632 AD, with Sunnis, the overwhelming majority, lording it over the less-radical Shiites. Thus of these 2 branches, Sunnis are by far the more violent and intolerantOnly Sunnis currently invade other countries (with US assistance) and kill non-believers such as Christians. Backed up by the compliant media, the Neocon Ministry of Propaganda, keeps feeding us the line that all Muslims are equally evil but that the Saudis (whose proxies ISIS, al Qaeda, al Nusra, and the McCain-funded “rebels” etc, keep slitting Christian throats) are necessary to American freedom.

As a quick reference, note that there are 600 Christian churches in Shiite Iran but none in Saudi Arabia (not saying, of course, that Iranian sharia law courts are in line with Western rules of niceness).

So if Russia and its Shiite allies Syria and Iran succeed in upsetting the “balance,” which currently gives the more evil of the two Islams enormous power over the less evil, then how is that a bad thing?

Without the Shia-Sunni schism in 632, there might well be little or no war in the Arab world. But in 1973 the US signed a secret pact with the Saudis, who are Sunni, and worse, are of the Wahhabi sect, arguably the most violent and destructive ideology in the world, whereby the US agreed to support them militarily in exchange for their propping up the falling dollar. Supposedly, the pact was only intended to protect the Saudi royals and the oil fields, but yet every conflict fought by the US military in the Muslim world since then has benefited not the security of the Saudis but the spread of their violent and repressive religion. Actions speak louder than words on paper. Of course, this was cloaked in patriotic language by the presidents and state department — nonsense like “bringing them democracy” or “freedom”. But the answer to the question cui bono was invariably: Sunni (Wahhabist) Islam, the religion behind ISIS, Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The US military had become a de facto mercenary force bought and paid for by Saudi Arabia.

The salient example of how the US actually supported Sunni Islam is Kosovo, where it invented a charge of “genocide” against a Christian country, Serbia, and went to a war that resulted in the creation of a Sunni Muslim state from a region with Christian roots going back centuries. (Read the “bloody truth” about Kosovo here: http://www.salon.com/1999/12/14/kosovo_11/.)

This is complicated by the fact that many Kosovars converted to Catholicism years ago, although Catholics and Orthodox have been at odds since the East-West schism in 1054. This puts Russia at odds with mainstream Western politicians in two ways:

1—Russia is Orthodox, like the Serbs and the Middle East Christians, which it supports.

2—Russia is allied with the Shiites in Iran and Syria.

That makes the Russians underdogs in two ways, and being Americans, we normally support the underdog. But the problem has been that Americans are unaware of these details because we know little history and little about the cultures of the countries that Washington seeks to control. I keep hearing from my readers that little details are unimportant.

But details are pieces of a puzzle. By discarding some pieces that appear useless when we first start assembling the puzzle, we make it impossible to insert those pieces later when we see how they fit into the whole.

When anyone expresses doubts as to the wisdom of demonizing Russia and its allies Iran and Syria, the sly Neocons invariably remind their zombie followers that “all Muslims are evil,” thereby sanctioning the killing of Iranians and Syrians. Yet they are strangely silent with regard to the Saudis and their support of the world’s most dangerous terror groups by far. Ignoring the details of Middle East culture – the missing puzzle pieces, most Americans are impotent to oppose this fallacy.

Here is how the deception works.

When Neocons discuss Iran, for example, “all Muslims are evil.” But when discussing the Saudis, they have little or nothing to say. So the real trouble makers in the Muslim world get an invisible pass while their opponents, who are now fighting ISIS, are labeled as evil and Joe Sixpack goes along with the meme. As a result, the people and their keepers perpetuate the age-old imbalance among Muslims, but this imbalance is portrayed by sly US politicians and the media as a “balance,” which may not be upset for fear of some undefined consequence.

The going narrative is full of holes. But they know that if you know the truth, you can free yourselves of their grip, help end the US’s pro-Sunni wars around the globe and help heal the Arab world and the West. As long as you believe this pernicious myth that “all Muslims are equal,” you can think that killing Muslims anywhere is a benefit to the West, giving the Neocons in Washington carte blanche to choose whichever branch of Islam to attack while granting the other – the real trouble maker – immunity. In fact, these unbalanced and one-side wars that ultimately benefit terror drive people out of their homelands and to Europe and the US, creating still more problems and solving none.

But Russians know the truth about history and culture and that is why ISIS is finally being challenged over the protests of the Western elitists desperate to save the dollar at the expense of peace in a perpetual blood-for-dollars strategy.

Jesus said: ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.

Want to be finally free?

You can start by learning the truth about the petrodollar deception, for example, by reading this and about the Sunni-Shia divide by reading

this and this.

 

Game over for Obama power in the world?

I don’t know how to make people realize how significant just that first sentence in the QUOTE OF THE CENTURY below. Suffice to say it signals the end of Obama’s power in the world arena.

Merkel broke the ice about a week before Putin’s blockbusting speech at the UN debate, saying that Assad needs to be included in any negotiations over Syria. http://www.dw.com/en/merkel-says-assad-must-have-role-in-syria-talks/a-18736427

Other European leaders seemed to – reluctanctly — agree.

Hollande is the biggest holdout, but no one can seriously doubt that he will bow to Junker on this.

Obama can huff and bluff all he wants now but it is over. This is reminiscent of how he “warned” his partners not to join the AIIB (Chinese-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank), on the flimsy excuse that it lacked “safeguards.” If you wonder what he meant by “safeguards,” the story is here http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150319.

I had said then that it looked like the rest of the world was turning its back on the US government. My first inkling of that was something a Chinese monetary expert had said: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/141219 in a press conference given only in Chinese.

Those were the big signs that America (not Russia as many air heads have said) was being isolated as a result of its insensitivity and outright bullying.

4 major signs so far that the US is losing its place on the world stage:

1—surge of the RMB as part of dedollarization

2—The accession of almost all US allies to the AIIB, a direct competitor of the World Bank/IMF

3—Merkel’s signaling that Assad is an indispensable partner in the war on terror

4—Now, today’s news that Jean-Claude Junker is shucking off the Washington yoke and making a significant overture to Russia.

Alone, Washington can no longer support terror in the Middle East. A sad and disgraceful chapter in US and world history seems to be coming to an end.

This loss of prestige will in turn change American minds like nothing has ever done and will influence our politics. Warmongers like Fiorina are already finished. Obama seems poised to exit the stage with his tail between his legs. Likewise, the Neocons, who also supported the anti-Christian terror in the Middle East, will see much of their prestige and credibility vaporize.

There is only one alternative to that for the Neocons: WW III and the end of life on this planet. Will they risk it?

Only if YOU let them.

 

QUOTE OF THE CENTURY by no less than the head of the EU Commission:

“We can not have our relationship towards Russia dictated by Washington. It’s simply not on.”

Jean-Claude Junker

 

Junker Throws in the Towel

This article originally appeared at German Economic News. Translated from the German by Boris Jaruselski

Huge reversal: the EU seeks a normal relationship with Russia. It seems that the EU is being greatly affected by the actions of Vladimir Putin in Syria: suddenly the EU President Jean-Claude Junker is saying that the EU must not let the US dictate their relationship with Russia. He has demanded a normalization of relations – and indirectly, the end of sancitons.

The EU Commission President advocated a relaxation in the conflict with Russia. “We have to achieve a sustainable relationship with Russia. It’s not sexy, but has to be done. We can’t go on like this anymore”, he said on Thursday in Passau. It isn’t necessary to achieve overall understanding, but a sensible conversational basis. “The Russians are a proud people”, the country has “a role to play”, said Junker: “One must not remove them from the bigger picture, otherwise they’ll call again, very quickly, as we seen already.” He critisized US Presidnet Barack Obama, for having downgraded Russia as “regional power”. “Russia needs to be treated correctly”, the Luxemburgian explained. “We can not have our relationship towards Russia dictated by Washington. It’s simply not on.

This statement is particularly noteworthy. Until now, the EU always placed emphasis on having complete accord with the Americans, with the placement of the Russian sanctions. Some time ago, the US Vice President Joe Biden made it clear that the US had urged the EU to impose the sacntions. Junkers’ big back flip is confirming the statement made by Biden. It’s hard to discern what’s really going on Junker’s mind: as late as March, Junker was demanding the establishment of a EU army, which was expressly directed against Russia: such a European army would “give Russia the impression, that we are seriously intending to defend European Union’s values”, Junker said word for word, back then.

 

Ron they never knew ye

Ronald Reagan would be crying now

 

by Don Hank

In the context of the current Syria crisis, I am seeing articles by “conservatives” suggesting that Ronald Reagan would have solved this by threatening the Russians or even shooting down Russian planes in Syria.

Conservatives (really Neocons if we are to be honest), I daresay you have forgotten who Ronald Reagan was and what made him a great statesman. His salient trait was, if anything, restraint. He was characterized precisely by not being the cowboy he was accused of being.

This year the GOP held its first major debate in a Reagan-themed venue, suggesting that the candidates were Reagan-like. All but one were the cheapest and shoddiest of imitations. Trump came closest because he is anti-establishment and tussles with the media, as Reagan had done. Of course, unlike Reagan, Trump does not exactly sound like a wise grandfather, more like a cantankerous uncle, but he is the only one who shows restraint toward Russia.

For all their hot air about Reagan, here is what today’s GOP wants you to forget:

Reagan never got the US into wars that killed thousands of Americans, the way the Bushes did.

Despite his cowboy image, exaggerated by the press, his skirmishes were brief and relatively safe. Only 19 Americans died in Grenada (although to be fair, legal experts tell us that war was not in line with international law), only two US airmen died in the 1986 attack on Libya, and no US military fighters died in Afghanistan because Reagan knew he did not dare go head to head with the Soviet Union in that conflict. Unlike today’s amateurs, Reagan knew that a nuclear confrontation would likely spell the end of civilization, if not of human life.

In fact, most of us have forgotten by now that, despite Reagan’s vehement philosophical disagreement with the Soviets, he did nothing to escalate the tension even after the Soviet Union shot down Korean Airlines flight 007 in September of 1983.

Instead of risking US lives in foreign conflicts, Reagan engaged in secret operations, for example, recruiting Osama bin Laden to fight the Russians in Afghanistan and numerous terror groups to ostensibly fight communism in Latin America and elsewhere (some of which groups we now, unfortunately, face as enemies).

Reagan also cautiously entered the conflict in Lebanon. However, instead of trying to reconcile the belligerent factions, he sided militarily with the Christian faction because he felt he should represent the people closest in religion to most Americans. Very shortly after that, the US Marine barracks were blown up by suicide bombers and he realized his mistake.

Now if he had been a Bush, he would no doubt have sacrificed still more lives for the sake of American “prestige.” Instead, to his credit, he pulled out all US troops and offered no lame excuses. The plaque on his desk said it all: “the buck stops with me.”

Now I am opposed to about everything our current radical socialist White House resident has done domestically, so the following is hard to say, but I hope you will make an effort to understand this: Like it or not, Obama’s policy of standing aside for Putin in Syria resembles Reagan’s policy in Lebanon and in the 007 shootdown incident more than the Neocon saber-rattling to which we are subjected 24-7. A good president knows when to hold ‘em and when to fold ‘em. Even a bad president has some good (and many bad) advisers. A stopped clock is right twice a day.

I can’t imagine the Gipper going up against Russia, and for the same reason that Obama won’t. It is just too downright dangerous. And yet, knowing the Gipper as we do, I am sure you will agree that he would not put the Syrian Christians in harm’s way as Obama has done. I would expect that Reagan would have made an effort to reconcile with Assad, knowing that the latter was protecting Christians and all other minorities in Syria.

So would Reagan have taken Israel’s side and opposed Assad over the Golan Heights?

Who knows? At any rate, you will no doubt agree that he’d have tried to find a mutually agreeable solution. On the other hand, it is true that no president, including Reagan, has ever supported making Jerusalem the capital of Israel – despite pressure to do so. Therefore, there never has been a totally pro-Israel US president.

Another important detail is that Jonathan Pollard was convicted of spying for Israel in 1987, near the end of the Reagan administration, and the president did not bow to pressure from Israel to release Pollard.

There are many unfathomables in US politics. Reagan was one of them. Yet some foolish Neocons hide behind the Reagan brand to defend their warlike policies and reckless statements about Putin.

Ron, they never knew ye.

US officials no longer cover lies about Syria, Russia

US officials don’t even bother to cover their lies about Syria

by Don Hank

Our Neocon Government used to make subtle suggestions and use obfuscation and omission to control your mind. Now they blatantly lie, even about things you can read about in the msm. Why? They know the public is so dumbed down anything goes. They can tell you on Sunday that it is Wednesday and the chances are you will believe it, cross off Wednesday on your calendar, write Sunday there and stay home from work.

Check out the first statement from a US Neocon official lying thru his teeth.

http://www.jewsnews.co.il/2015/10/04/folks-heres-what-the-media-wont-tell-you-about-russia-bombing-syria/

QUOTE: The [Russian] strikes hit targets in Homs and Hama, but there is no presence of ISIS in those areas, a senior U.S. defense official said¨[US official meme is that Russia ONLY attacks “moderates” and not ISIS – this supports the Neocon notion that Russia is evil and the US government is virtuous]

Really?

http://english.alarabiya.net/en/News/middle-east/2015/08/06/ISIS-seizes-key-Syrian-town-in-Homs-.html

Title: ISIS seizes key Syrian town in… where? HOMS

Ya say ya don’t trust Al Arabiya? How about BBC, reporting in August 2015:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33806122

QUOTE: Islamic State ‘seizes Syria town of al-Qaryatain’ in Homs province

But what about Hama? the official assured us there was  no ISIS in Hama province. Ooops! The NYT gives the lie to that lie.

Reported on April 1

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/02/world/middleeast/syria-isis-advances-in-hama-and-damascus.html?_r=0

BEIRUT, Lebanon — Islamic State militants in Syria have seized new territory on multiple fronts in recent days, killing dozens of civilians in the central province of Hama, residents there said, and advancing on Wednesday into the chaotic Yarmouk district on the southern edge of Damascus.

NEVER NEVER NEVER pay a bit of attention to what a US official tells you about foreign affairs, especially about what the Russians are doing in Syria. Especially when they say Russia is not taking out ISIS. They will take out ISIS so fast your head will spin. On the other hand, if you believe the official US statements, your head is already spinning.

In that case, don’t forget to stay home from work on Sunday – you know, the day after Tuesday.

Normandy Four snub Obama

Normandy Four snub Obama

 

by Don Hank

The fact that Ukraine, Germany and France have agreed to meet with Russia in Paris on Oct 2 (see story linked below) without any kibitzing from Obama (not invited) is clear evidence that

1-Obama – not Putin (per the Neocon fable) is the one who is isolating himself with his uncompromising rigidity.

2-Putin scored points and changed minds at the UN debate on Monday.

3-Europe, while perhaps still wary of Russia, still considers it a negotiating partner, either despite of or – more likely – because of Putin’s bold military initiative in Syria – standing as it does in bold contrast to Obama’s inertness.

After all, as I have seen on European talk shows (Deutsche Welle, RAI Italia, TV 5 from France) since the Syrian air strikes, the Europeans – unlike the US – are more immediately concerned about the immigration crisis than any other aspect of the Syrian issue. No one — particularly not the US — has made any progress in stopping the terror that the refugees are escaping (and as Putin rightly suggested without naming names, ISIS is a US invention). Germany, which initially put on a show of compassion for the refugees, has seen violence (eg, against women, Shiites and Christians) and chicanery (false passports) among these refugees. Worse, their refugee welcome centers are overwhelmed and so are many public schools, unable to keep up with the demand for German language classes, etc.

American Neocons can sit down and moralize about Syria, pretending that the duly elected Assad is a “dictator” (while pretending that the Saudis and their unelected king are somehow democratic and more civilized – even as they bomb poor little Yemen to smithereens).

But Europe’s institutions are under siege and individual EU countries cannot reach an agreement even over whether to accept ANY refugees, let alone 10,000 a day. This is causing a rift that threatens the integrity of the Union.

Europe’s “leaders” are panicked and, Like him or hate him, they know that Putin is the one who has stepped into the gag and is helping to solve their problem (despite silly statements by Obama to the contrary). His prestige in Europe has undoubtedly gone up since the UN debates and the Syria initiative.

And our hapless White House resident said Putin needs to “become a little smarter”? LOL!

http://rbth.com/news/2015/09/30/normandy_four_meeting_in_paris_is_joint_initiative_of_france_germany_rus_49671.html