May 28

Trump the most likely to keep the peace?

A world without war is possible (but you won’t see it)

 

Don Hank

One of my correspondents sent me an email containing a pasted article entitled “A World Without Nuclear Weapons — Ours.”

The gist of it was that the Obama government was paring back our nuclear arsenal while Russia was beefing up theirs and that they would survive a nuclear conflict while we would not. Because they have more nukes. Hey, good thinking! All we have to do is stay a step ahead in the construction of nuclear weapons and we’ll all be safe even if they launch a strike, but they’ll be toast if they do. Right?

I decided to do a little research and find out the sizes of our respective nuclear arsenals and, of course, answer the really meaty question: how many nukes would it take to make the earth uninhabitable? In other words, despite the difference in size of our respective arsenals, would Russia – or anyone – survive an all-out nuclear conflict given the combined size of our arsenals (and this is not even counting the Chinese arsenal also arrayed against us)?

I discovered here that the difference in the numbers of nukes held by the Russians and those held by the US is a few hundred, with each country bristling with over 7000, or a difference of only a few percentage points.

But scientists reckon that even a small nuclear exchange of about 200 nuke explosions between countries like India and Pakistan, which could have about that many such weapons between them, would make the earth uninhabitable for up to 25 years by kicking up black dust that would quickly spread throughout the earth’s atmosphere and block the sunlight. The first year, the scant sunlight peeping through the bleak atmosphere would allow farming for only a month a year.

So apparently the person who wrote this article thinks we really ought to have enough nukes to destroy the earth, say, 74 times over (counting the Russian retaliatory strikes during a nuclear exchange involving an equal number of nukes on either side) because Russia has enough to destroy it almost 80 times over (counting the US input in such an exchange).

So, taking our cue from that writer, how about this for a military plan?

Make at least 1000 more nukes than Russia and then strike Russia with about 250 at first and kill off most of them. Of course, they would retaliate with their subs and hypersonic ICBMs which cannot be detected by any known means, and with their space-launched MIRVs, each of which would shower us with too many bombs for any anti-missile shield to deal with at once. Most would get through and do their job.

That would kill almost all of us but a few who happened to be out of the country at the time.

Then, according to this exquisitely thought out plan, we could hit them 25 years later – after the world became habitable again – with another 250 to kill all the survivors.  We might reasonably anticipate that they would do likewise with the remaining sub-borne missiles in their stockpile, but never mind.  Just 25 short years after this second all-out strike, if the world became habitable again, we could resume this process and continue it for just 800 years until they were completely out of nukes and then the good old exceptional USA would emerge triumphant at last. No sweat.  I bet the Pentagon would like clever this plan.

Of course, these calculations are based on the assumption that no one would be developing any further nukes during the 25 interbellum years after each all-out exchange.

It also is based on the assumption that neither side would launch more than the number needed to make the world temporarily uninhabitable during any given strike. That is, that the 2 antagonists would not make the world uninhabitable indefinitely during one of the first few exchanges. It could happen, but why sweat something so trivial as the demise of the planet?

Of course, knowing human beings and their desire to be winners against all odds, it is possible that the first strike would be followed by a several-fold retaliatory strike by the other side and then a similar one by the first striker until the entire combined arsenal was gone in one spectacular fireworks display. If it only takes a few hundred strikes to make the earth uninhabitable for 25 years, then, assuming a simple mathematical relationship were possible (though it probably is not), we can imagine that after depletion of our combined arsenals of over 15,000 nukes, the world might become uninhabitable for a total of say, 800 years..

But cheer up. After that, it would probably be all over and that no-nuke world that many have dreamed of would finally have arrived. Hooorah for the USA!

Most likely, however, the first nuclear exchange would wind up killing off all but the cockroaches.

A pity neither fish nor fowl nor four footed creatures, including the one with the best-developed brain that made it all possible, would be around to enjoy such perfect peace.

As the author of the above-mentioned article makes clear, we have more important things to worry about than the survival of earth. One of the opponents in this great conflict must focus on saving the earth from global warming and keeping its dominance of the planet at all costs, and on maintaining its pace in the initiation of color revolutions and wars that reduce nations to chaos, as it did in Libya, Kosovo, Ukraine, Syria and elsewhere — lest it surrender its hegemony. Meanwhile, the other needs to consider the proposition: live free or die.

So is there an alternative to what is increasingly looking like a showdown with Russia?

There is no telling what any candidate will do once elected. However, while almost all of the GOP candidates have “talked tough” on Russia, and some have explicitly stated that, if elected, they would start shooting down Russian planes in Syria (apparently they had never heard of the S-400s strategically placed all around the country), and while Hillary has shown as secretary of state, her warhawk Neocon bona fides, one candidate stood out with statements like “I think I could get along with Putin,” and “what are we nuts? Why not let the Russians take on ISIS?” This more respectful and reasonable attitude toward Russia as a potential partner rather than an adversary is an alternative to the reckless statements of the Neocons on the campaign trail. Trump is at least aware that US military adventures have done nothing but destroy the infrastructure and political stability of nations or regions like Iraq, Libya, Kosovo, Ukraine, Syria, and have jeopardized others like Egypt. And while he has been falsely accused by Establishment figures — particularly the Neocons — of threatening world peace because of a supposedly irascible temperament, he has in fact stood out against the others as a man who wants to stop taunting the bear. From the standpoint of a stable and peaceful world, he is, ironically, the only option.

 

 

May 25

Saudi press claims US behind 911 attacks

Saudis now claim US behind 911 attacks

 

by Don Hank
The Saudi press, seething over the possibility that Congress will allow the families of 911 victims to sue Saudi Arabia, is now claiming the US is 100% behind the 911 attacks.

While  am not buying the Saudi narrative that the attacks were made in the USA, it is clear that Bush covered for the Saudis, who, after all, did create Al-Qaeda (in a joint venture with the US).

The Saudis were definitely the main actors but American officials covered for them — whether or not they were in on the plot.

Add to this the fact that Russia and China are settling all oil trades in RMB and April was a record month for these trades, with China buying more oil – and in its own currency –  than it did from the Saudis. That puts pressure on the Saudis to walk away from its now threadbare petrodollar agreement – the only thing holding up the USD. I would be surprised if this agreement survived beyond 2016.

Consider this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alastair-crooke/petrodollar-us-saudi-policy_b_6245914.html

The petrodollar would seem by any measure to be losing its fight for existence. And since it is the basis of our war machine, the Asians could in fact bring down Washington’s military ambitions with their oil trade. We could hardly blame them after imposing senseless sanctions on Russia for all this time. The sanctions could be considered the trigger for the demise of the dollar.

We may soon see a world in which the US would be powerless to effect regime change of the kind that destroyed Libya and Ukraine, made Kosovo a no-go zone for its own indigenous Christian population, nearly destroyed Syria and sent millions of refugees, terrorists and hoodlums to flood Europe.

Why would anyone miss these misguided and stupid policies?

Washington may soon be a spectator rather than the bad actor it has been so far.

RIP New World Order?

If all of this happens as it is expected to, then who will bail out the impoverished and starving West?

Answer: None other than Asia – China and Russia. There are no other realistic options on the horizon.

In this perspective, Donald Trump’s statements about getting along with Russia and cooperating with her make perfect sense.

 

May 24

Russia refuses to sell tanks to Iran

Russia refuses to sell tanks to Iran

 

by Don Hank

Russia is constantly accused in the West of only pursuing its own selfish interests in the world, particularly in the Middle East. However, if that were true, then, particularly now that US-imposed sanctions are hurting them economically, one would expect them to sell arms to any country that asks for them. Russia is, however, refusing to sell its sophisticated T-90 tank to Iran.

If you understand what I call the Putin Principle, as described here, you will easily grasp what is motivating him.

According to TASS, President Vladimir Putin is trying to comply with international treaties, which at this time ban the sale of tanks to Iran. Iran and Russia are not on the best of terms right now because Iran thinks Russia is too cozy with the West. For example, Iran does not want Russia to deal with Israel, but of course, Russia does what is best for Russia (which is also what is best for the US people, but the Neocons, as defined here, are not We the People, quite the opposite). Putin is a friend of Israel. Some Israeli leaders have said he is the best friend Israel has. That may be true.

There is contention in the Kremlin right now because the hardliners in the Russian military want direct military confrontation with the West. Putin wants peace with all sides but is also looking out for the security and safety of the Russian speakers in Ukraine and the minorities, notably Orthodox Christians, in Syria. At this point in time, it is fair to say that Putin is the de facto mediator between all world factions. In accordance with the Putin Principle, he does not take sides (at least not in the obtuse manner of Washington), just insists on respect for international law and the sovereignty of nations  –  not some silly “Russian exceptionalism” or the like (though a case could be made for the existence of such).

If the West has the upper hand, there will be constant senseless wars everywhere. If Putin’s Russia imposes its will, there will be peace between the 2 main axes, ie,

Israel-US and allies (incl the Saudis and Turkey)-Europe, and

Russia-China and allies (such as Syria and Iran – though Iran is an unreliable ally).

If Putin is removed from power or retires at this point, the hardline faction in the Kremlin could take over and make life a living hell for the West. There could be a world war. Putin is the key to peace.

So what do our brilliant Neocons (like Hillary and most GOP “leaders”, for ex) do to promote peace and show their respect to the Russian leader?

Why antagonize Russia as much as possible, amassing NATO troops at the Russian border just as Hitler did prior to WW II and imposing sanctions intended to hurt Russia but which in fact hurt Europe more.

We need to understand clearly that there cannot be all-out war with Russia. That is a false concept entertained by all shallow Western foreign policy “experts.” There can only be all-out war with the China-Russia bloc, never with Russia alone. They will defend each other. Numerous joint exercises and military parades in conspicuous places are intended to demonstrate their solidarity and the “experts” snoozed through them all. In the 70s the elites thought that free trade with China would cause a split between the 2 nations (as outlined in my commentary “China, an unreliable tool of the New World Order”), which at the time the free trade deal was signed, were not on friendly terms.

Heavy-handed and childish US meddling has meanwhile united them, and has also made China extravagantly rich – unintended consequences of an irresponsible gamble.

For most of you, the following will be a rhetorical question:

Can the US defeat BOTH China and Russia?

For those who actually have contemplated this question seriously, here is something to chew on:

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/130726

Don Hank

May 20

Germany’s Fourth Reich supports terror in Crimea

The entire Western elitosphere has been quietly dismantling Judeo-Christian culture and putting non-Muslims (Jews, Christians and non-believers) at serious risk for over a half-century, starting roughly in about 1953, when the CIA facilitated a coup against the democratically elected government of Iran (http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/cia-assisted-coup-overthrows-government-of-iran. The CIA later admitted their — and Britain’s role: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/19/cia-admits-role-1953-iranian-coup). The upshot was a brutal rule by the Shah followed by an authoritarian Islamic regime in response to this). US involvement in the Middle East has invariably led to the installation of Islamic despots or terror groups like ISIS, who killed, persecuted and expelled Christians and other minorities, eg, in Libya and Syria. Clinton’s war in Kosovo was part of the same campaign, turning Kosovo, the sacred cradle of Serbian Christianity, into a Muslim state that has decimated the former native Serbian population and all but totally destroyed their churches and sacred monuments. And the complicit press has not uttered a word about it. I was able to learn this only by going to a web site in the Serbian language run by a church group. My report (mostly a translation) is here: http://laiglesforum.com/look-whats-happening-in-the-european-region-that-nato-defended/3786.htm. (The ulterior motive for this intense anti-Judeo-Christian campaign is explained here: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/hank/150314).

Now comes Berlin attempting to support terror in Crimea by supporting the Mejlis, a Muslim Tatar group that once collaborated with Hitler, and recently has sabotaged power lines in Crimea. As in Kosovo, the West is attempting to portray the Muslims as victims of Christians when a cursory look would suffice to demonstrate the exact opposite. The only reason they can get away with this is because they are keeping you the public in the dark.

That is why you need to read the report below. But also note that the corresponding German language report from this same site provides details on the terror perpetrated by Mejlis (see my comments below).

And despite the clear-cut provocation of Russia (US and EU support for the bloody illegal Maidan coup), US media, pols and officials continue to insist that the US needs to build up arms to resist Russian “aggression.” Yet our buildup is what is leading to a reaction on the part of the Russians. All we need to do is stop the provocation. But, shhhhh. You’re not allowed to know that. It’s all their fault.

Don Hank

http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/58941

Auxiliary Troops Against Moscow (I)

 

2016/05/17

BERLIN/KIEV

 

(Own report) – One of Berlin’s government advisors is calling for Russia’s expulsion from the Council of Europe. The Russian government’s actions against the Crimean Tatars and its banning their Mejlis – a political organization – along with other measures, make it “no longer possible to justify continuing Russian membership in the Council of Europe,” according to a current position statement published by the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP). This demand is made at a time when the Crimean Tatars have been drawn into the spotlight throughout Europe, by the openly politicized Eurovision Song Contest (ESC). Whereas public perception of Crimean Tatars has been predominated by their 1944 deportation, their collaboration with the Nazis, which had preceded their deportation, has been obscured. As historians have ascertained, in 1942, “every tenth Tatar on the Crimean Peninsula was in the military” – on the side of Nazi Germany. Crimean Tatars fought on the side of the German Wehrmacht against the Soviet Union, excelling in the notorious “efforts to crush the partisan movement” and turned their Jewish neighbors over to the Nazis’ henchmen. Already in the 1920s, leading Tatar functionaries had complained of a “Jewification” of their communities, in their protests against Moscow’s resettlement measures of Jewish families. Later, exiled Crimean Tatars volunteered their services for the West’s cold war efforts to destabilize Moscow. The Mejlis, which today is quite controversial among the Crimean Tatars, stands in this tradition.

The German language version of this report says, for example, that the head of Mejlis, Refat Chubarov, met with members of the German foreign ministry even though “Chubarov single-handedly announced a blockade of Ukrainian trade with Crimea.” And “expressly praised the consequences thereof, namely, sensitive price hikes in staple foods.” Further “even the bombing of power transmission poles by activists within the sphere of Mejlis did not deter the Ministry from holding the meeting.”

Clearly, the most powerful nation in Europe is in perfect sympathy and harmony with the goals of this Muslim terror organization. And the US government watches in consenting silence. But then, we must recall that Hitler used Muslims to reach his goals as well.

Plus ça change…

Don Hank

German language version, more detailed, here:

Hilfstruppen gegen Moskau (III)

 

20.05.2016

BERLIN/KIEW

 

(Eigener Bericht) – Berlin baut seine Zusammenarbeit mit dem Medschlis der Krimtataren trotz dessen Verwicklung in Gewaltaktionen aus. Erst kürzlich ist der Vorsitzende des Medschlis, Refat Tschubarow, zu politischen Gesprächen im Auswärtigen Amt gewesen. Dem Treffen stand nicht entgegen, dass Tschubarow im September eine eigenmächtige Blockade des ukrainischen Handels mit der Krim angekündigt hatte – und auch nicht, dass Tschubarow im Oktober die für die Krim-Bevölkerung schädlichen Folgen der Tataren-Blockade, nämlich Mangel und empfindliche Preiserhöhungen bei Grundnahrungsmitteln, ausdrücklich gepriesen hatte. Sogar die Sprengung von Strommasten durch Aktivisten aus dem Umfeld des Medschlis, die die Krim in hohem Maß von der Stromversorgung abgeschnitten hat, lässt das deutsche Außenministerium nicht auf Distanz zu der Vereinigung gehen. Deutsche Ethno-Organisationen haben schon vor Jahren gute Beziehungen zu Tschubarow und zu seinem Amtsvorgänger Mustafa Dschemiljew aufgebaut, die von 2010 an intensiviert wurden, um nach dem Regierungswechsel in Kiew antirussische Kreise in der Ukraine zu stärken. Die Kooperation mit dem Medschlis-Milieu, das unter den Tataren auf der Krim durchaus umstritten ist, erfolgt in enger Abstimmung mit den USA, der Türkei unter Erdo?an und anderen NATO-Staaten. Die Parallelität von Kooperation mit den Krimtataren und deren teils gewalttätigen Protesten erinnert an die Entwicklung im Frühjahr 2013 in der Ukraine.

 

May 17

Is your favorite news site REALLY conservative? Or is it Neocon?

Is your favorite news site REALLY conservative? Or is it Neocon? 

by Don Hank

There is a good chance that those “conservative” sites you read are not actually conservative but instead are Neocon or a combination of Neocon and Libertarian. Let me put it bluntly: Neoconservative is roughly the diametric opposite of conservative, as explained here.

You will remember my article Has WND gone full-bore Neocon?, which shows how WND grotesquely distorted a NYT report on a member of the Russian public who posted, possible in a blog, that Romania could be reduced to a “smoldering ruin” if there were a confrontation between that country and Russia. WND falsely reported that his quote came from a Russian official.

Now you know that first of all, I would never have made such a mistake. But more importantly, if I had, I would have printed a retraction and an apology as soon as I learned of my error. That was how decent journalists behaved back when there was an ounce of decency left in the profession. But you can no longer call it a profession, more of a money grab.

By way of an update, let me tell you that shortly after my article appeared, a reader advised me that WND had removed that article like a thief in the night.

No apology, no retraction, just a surgical removal.

Recently, our friend Julio Severo wrote an article exposing certain Neocons posing as conservatives. He sent it to Free Republic and it is still archived at that site. You can read it here: http://archive.is/Qn6Iq

Julio writes to his readers:

“Friends

I published my article on Cliff Kincaid in the conservative website Free Republic. See a copy saved here: http://archive.is/Qn6Iq

Now Free Republic has banned me. See my Free Republic account as saved here: http://archive.is/Z4MS1

I had been publishing my articles on Free Republic since 2008, and only now I saw that they are partners with Cliff Kincaid.

Free Republic says that they advocate FREE SPEECH from a conservative viewpoint, but they killed the free speech of a Brazilian conservative writer who used no dirty language [the way Olavo de Carvalho does, for example, as described here  – Don] and no personal attack to talk about Kincaid and his ideas.

Julio Severo”

I told Julio his article on Kincaid was still up at the Free Republic archives and that there were a lot of comments, all agreeing with him and mostly mocking Kincaid.

He responded:

“They banned me yesterday, immediately after I published about Kincaid. I called them [on the phone] because they called me a ‘troll,’ but I explained that I am not a troll and that I am a Brazilian writer, but they did not care. They only answered to me “GOOD BYE!” and hung up the telephone.

See this contact information:
Free Republic, LLC
PO Box 9771, Fresno, CA 93794
jimrob@psnw.com (559) 273-1400”

 

I wrote back:

“Julio,

Neocons are the real trolls. They pretend to be conservative and post on conservative issues, but hate the truth when you point out facts that they want covered up.

I warned my readers of this evil ideology here:

http://laiglesforum.com/our-father-commands-be-wise/3377.htm

You need to read that to understand the enemy.

All Russia bashers are Neocons. Most of them write for money. Kincaid’s group has received millions in donations.

Don”

 

This site details the source of Kincaid’s funding (ie, for Accuracy in Media”):

“A minimum of eight separate oil companies are known to have been contributors in the early 80s. Only three donors of the remainder[clarification needed] are given by name: the Allied Educational Foundation (founded and chaired by George Barasch), Shelby Cullom Davis, and billionaire Richard Mellon Scaife. Scaife gave $2 million to Accuracy in Media between 1977 and 1997.[24]

With this kind of funding coming in, you don’t need talent and you don’t need accuracy. In fact, you can be a liar and a drooling idiot. All you need is slavish obedience to your funding sources.

And who are these funding sources?

Shellby Cullom Davis, is affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, which claims to be conservative but somehow, according to this site:

“The health insurance mandate in the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, is an idea hatched in 1989 by Stuart M. Butler at Heritage in a publication titled “Assuring Affordable Health Care for All Americans”.[37] This was also the model for Mitt Romney‘s health care plan in Massachusetts.[38]

According to wikipedia, Richard Mellon Scaife, who gave Kincaid’s AIM $2 million, was affiliated with the Center for Strategic International Studies (CSIS), aptly described as Neoconservative and having on its board such notable Neocons as Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski. One of its board members is or was Carla Anderson, listed as the Chairwoman of the CFR – the New World Order flagship that wants all borders eliminated ASAP.

Oh, and Scaife also funded WND. Are you connecting the dots?

So Kincaid can pretend to be conservative, but the Neocon label is stuck to him like glue.

Below is my spoof on Kincaid’s silly comments on Donald Trump, suggesting Trump has some sort of sinister relationship with the Kremlin:

 

OMG, Wait ’til you read THIS! The smoking gun for sure!:

 

http://www.aim.org/aim-column/follow-trumps-money-to-moscow/

 

No WONDER Donald Trump is being nice to Putin. He sinisterly wants to build a hotel in Moscow.

Another building contractor running for president just so he can get a contract in Moscow. Why do they keep doing this?

I don’t know about you but I am very disappointed.

After this revealing article by the gifted researcher Cliff Kincaid, we now KNOW that Trump will be sinisterly trading away all of the Pentagon’s top secret secrets in exchange for the sinister Moscow Trump Tower contract, don’t we?

What’s that you say? Guccifer ALREADY gave away our top secret secrets to Russia?

Oh, ok. Never mind.

Just the same, I really thought Donald Trump wanted to make America great again. But now it looks like he only has sinister plans to make Russian tourism great.  Again…?

Mr. Kincaid is a GENIUS to have figured this sinister intrigue all out.

Now what does America do?

Wait, you say if Trump builds the Moscow hotel, that would bring money into the US instead of the other way around?

Oh, ok. Never mind.

But here is what Cliffy’s article also suggests, and boy you tell me this is not sinister: The article suggests, I think, that Trump is angling for Putin’s job. He no doubt has sinister plans to become the president of Russia so that, as a prestigious representative of not one but TWO world powers, he can build Trump Towers all over the world, including North Korea (I bet that’s the main target and Cliffy would no doubt agree)! Or at the very least, he could become the chief bellhop at Trump Tower Moscow.

At the very sinister least!

Cliffy’s message to America: Vote for Hillary!

Don Hank

PS: I know some of you are wondering why I would devote any time to this stuff (like I did here – which is why Cliffy is not very fond of me). However, I learned long ago that reading Neocon writings is therapeutic. Dealing in real world issues can be depressing and stressful. This is my way of escaping. Thank you, Cliffy!

Yes, Folks, some lame-brained billionaire paid Cliff $2 million to share this kind of “insight” with the world.

May 13

Has WND gone full-bore Neocon?

by Don Hank

WND reports here http://www.wnd.com/2016/05/russia-romania-could-be-smoking-ruins/ that “Russian officials” threatened to turn Romania into “smoking ruins.” They did not provide a link to that quote and did not state what Russian “official” had said it.

So I went fishing and discovered that the quote came from a NYT article and no Russian officials were quoted. In fact, it came from a member of the Russian public, just some blogger or participant of a forum. Even NYT does not specify who may have made the idle remark or on what web site:

Here http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/13/world/europe/russia-nato-us-romania-missile-defense.html?_r=0 is the original report of the anonymous remark:

“But the public discussion in Russia was darker, including online commentary of how a nuclear confrontation might play out in Europe, and the prospect that Romania, the system’s host, might be reduced to “smoking ruins.”

Does WND not know the difference between a Russian official and an anonymous member of the Russian public? Suppose a Russian journalist quoted a member of the KKK haranguing about blacks and claimed the quote came from an American ‘official’.”

Americans rightly complain that the msm have lowered their standards. But these same Americans read WND and think they are reading the gospel truth.

Looks like WND has gone full-bore Neocon. Does WND have any inkling that the US deliberately provoked Russia by using Soros foundations and USAID to bring about an illegal bloody coup in Kiev and then supported the corrupt new government, which includes fascist guerilla fighters? Does anyone at WND understand how much the Russians fear the fascists and why? Let’s review history: Russia lost several times as many of its people in WW II than the other allies combined but managed to kill 3 out of every 4 Nazis that were killed in the war. Without the Russians we’d possibly be goose stepping to the tune of Deutschland über Alles by now. Further, if it were not for US covert operations, there would be no Taliban, no Al-Qaeda and no ISIS. Russia is the only country sincerely fighting ISIS and is pushing them out of territories where their presence was tolerated by Washington. Why so much hate expended against a people to whom we owe so much? Is it ignorance or just plain evil? James Baker promised Gorbachev that there would be no troop buildup along the Russian border if they cooperated with the US. They did but we lied. There are troops everywhere now where we said there would be none and we expect the Russians to think these fighters are just deer hunting perhaps? What would the US do if the shoe were on the other foot and Russia were building up troops along the Canadian and Mexican borders?

Don Hank

May 12

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.

May 11

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.

Apr 14

The msm’s slander of Putin: “not my fight”

Slander of Putin: “not my fight”

by Don Hank

In response to my latest article on the Panama Papers and their false indictment of Putin, I received an email from a reader who said he had too many fights and didn’t have time to get involved in matters regarding Putin and rumors surrounding him. Obviously, he thinks this issue could never affect him and his family. And indeed, I have been covering this a lot, eg, here, here and here.

But this reader is wrong, dead wrong. It is his issue, like it or not, as I will show further on.

I got another email from someone who said Cruz and Trump were both outsiders. They are in a way, but on different levels. They are not peers in any substantive way (see below).

In response to the first, I have been around long enough to know what war propaganda is. Generally, when war propaganda starts, it is not just idle chatter on the part of the msm and political class. It generally ends up in a war that the US either loses or whose outcome harms the US and others but benefits Saudi Arabia, the most dangerous enemy of the American people – why dangerous? Because you are being told it is an ally, when it is not. It’s as if you told a small child at the zoo that the polar bears are just cute cuddly critters that want to be hugged, as you allow the child to slip innocently through the bars.

When anyone says they are not interested in the anti-Russian (and anti-Assad) propaganda because it is “not my fight,” they are in a real way saying that they don’t care whether more Americans lose their lives fighting in a useless war or not. And in the case of Russia, they are saying they aren’t a bit worried that the elites are busy stirring up a nuclear holocaust that literally threatens the fate of planet earth.

But you know what? I don’t believe them. If they thought about it for a second, they would have to admit that it is not only their fight but everyone’s fight.

Since WW II, we have not fought a war in which the “enemy” was actually an enemy of the American people (although most of the adversaries were in some way opposed to an ideology cherished by the elites). I have shown before that, contrary to what other pundits say, we are fighting on behalf of the Saudis to promote Wahhabism even as we pretend to fight the terror groups they spawn and fund (see the list below).

However, there is a major difference between Cruz and Trump that most people ignore or think is not important.

Cruz is a typical Establishment warmonger who will support the wars that help the Saudis spread deadly Wahhabism. Trump has already defied the Saudi leader on one occasion and has cut him down to size, tweeting

“Dopey Prince@Alwaleed_Talal wants to control our US politicians with daddy’s money. Can’t do that when I get elected.”

With these words, Trump shook the earth and created a plate shift felt by all of us who understand how the US has literally been controlled by the Saudis for at least a half-century. (I urge you to read this to understand how the Saudis control the Pentagon and State Department, inducing unwary Americans to kill people all over the world to spread their poisonous Wahhabi doctrines.)

No president or prominent American has ever opposed the Saudi power elite the way Trump has done. Of course, the msm reported the prince’s juvenile tweet regurgitating the words of US Neocon candidates condemning Trump as “unfit” to be president and did not bother reporting that earth-shattering retort by Trump. They almost unanimously reported that the prince had very ably put Trump in his place – displaying their complicity with the entire US Establishment and unwittingly confirming that the Establishment is indeed in bed with the Saudi cut throats and terror supporters.

Cruz doesn’t even see any of this. He apparently thinks that the main problem with our military is its strength and funding. But the main problem is how it is constantly abused and has been for the last 50 years since Kissinger-Nixon agreed to protect the Saudis in exchange for their charging only USD for their oil. It is obvious, however, that “protecting” the Saud—as stipulated in the petrodollar agreement — goes far beyond protecting their oil fields. It has led exclusively to wars that only benefit them and harm the US.

Thus the Saudis oppose, and will not tolerate, 3 kinds of leaders in the Middle East or other parts of the world that affect Muslims, and those 3 kinds are

Christian leaders,

secular leaders, and

Shiite leaders.

Washington has gone to bat for the Saudis — and against America and traditional Christian values — in every war outside of the Americas since the early 70s.

Here are some people the Saudis hated that the US elites took out:

Saddam (secular Muslim)

Ghadaffi (secular Muslim)

Assad (secular and Shiite – specifically, he is Alawite, a Shiite sect)

Iranian leaders (notice how the war drums have been constantly beating against the Iranians, even though they, as Shiites, could never have funded or founded any Sunni terror groups and even though the Saudis have been behind all the major ones such as Taliban, Al-Qaeda, ISIS…)

Serbian Christian leader Milosevic, who fought back against the Albanian Muslim terrorists. (Don’t miss my analyses of the Kosovo war here and here explaining how the US elites deceived the world to establish a Muslim state in Europe that is now persecuting Christians. BTW, as if to establish the Saudi connection, the Saudis sent billions in aid to the Muslim Kosovars after this war).

Putin (Christian leader. Our Petrodollar agreement with the Saudis explains our irrational national hatred — purely a construct of the political class — of Russia, the only world power that aids and protects the Shiite and other minorities and the Christians in Muslim areas)

If you can’t see this plain-as-day pattern it is because you don’t want to believe it.

We are being deceived by both high-ranking Democrats and high-ranking Republicans and it will stay that way, with our young men dying for useless wars until enough people wake up and see this issue of anti-Putinism for what it is, namely, a national security issue and a dire threat to you from your “government.”

Note, however, that I am not advocating a pacifist ideology. The one group we should be fighting — alongside Russia — is ISIS and its allies, so-called rebels, who are all Islamists, even though the same political class that gave us our Russia hate is also falsely telling you that these “rebels” are on “our” side. ISIS is of course the one group that Washington is not fighting – except in its fictional narrative reflected in the msm.

Yet when Russia and Assad proved that they could and would fight ISIS for real, US government agencies and Soros dug up phony dirt on him. Phony because he is the only world leader included in the Panama Papers “scandal” who has not either himself or thru family members participated in offshore dealings — which, by the way, are not illegal.

It’s another small step toward a war that will please the Saudis immensely but will also harm your country immensely.

Apr 13

Those magnificent men and their lying machines

Those magnificent men and their lying machines

by Don Hank

Stratfor, a web site that purports to be a tool for strategic forecasting, generally presents a viewpoint and focus that have been identified as Neoconservative and pro-Establishment. Back in 2014, I commented here on Stratfor when I noticed that some of my friends had mistaken it for a reliable information source instead of the propaganda tool that it actually is. Since the Pentagon and State Department are apparently the target clients, the reporting a part of the strategy itself, with a view to influencing rather than informing. This makes Stratfor part of the msm and the Establishment, which Americans increasingly, justifiably, mistrust.

Stratfor’s latest effort, titled “Those who are (and are not) sheltered from the Panama Papers,” looks on the surface to be an objective overview of the different world leaders who were reportedly “exposed” in the Panama Papers.

Almost as soon as the Panama Papers “scandal” broke, I immediately realized that this was timed by the global elites to embarrass Putin so that he would get the minimum amount of credit for routing ISIS in their important Syrian strongholds. He wasn’t supposed to be there but here he was making the Pentagon and State Department look like the phonies they were. Anyone with half a brain knew all along that the elites were only pretending to fight ISIS, which was, after all, birthed and nourished as a joint venture between Washington and Riyadh, as revealed here

and here, for example, as well as in scores of other venues. It’s never been a secret for anyone who knows how to use Google. In response, I wrote this analysis on April 4.

Other keen analysts also saw through the scheme, eg, as expressed in this commentary. By now anyone who can read can easily see that the Panama Papers report is a scam. In fact, none of the reports on this topic even state that the law firm of Mossack and Fonseca has ever done anything illegal. Offshore accounts have been around forever and no one has ever seriously tried before to make the case that they are illegal. Until now. Because the elites think they have caught a big fish in their dragnet and can bring down the regime of the man who dared to protect the Christians and minorities in Syria.

I saw through Stratfor’s little game immediately when I started scanning his article and I wrote the following to him by clicking on the link he helpfully provided for that purpose.
My response to his article:

 

Dear Stratfor,

You dedicate 5 paragraphs to Russia, more than any other region or country. Yet your story on Putin is the only one on a national leader in which neither the leader himself nor his family was involved in offshore dealings. I think this is part of the Western spin that Russians are complaining about [the article had mentioned this—Don]. Further, offshore companies are not illegal and do not necessarily imply corruption on the part of people who use them. However, how could you blame a Russian leader for hiding funds from US scrutiny? Several Russian nationals’ bank accounts were seized by the US government in response to the Crimeans’ free choice to accede to Russia, and not one of these Russian depositors was found guilty of any wrongdoing. The illegal act was perpetrated not by the Russian nationals but by the US Justice Department. The US is becoming increasingly arbitrary in seizing and freezing other people’s money and is focused on Russia because that country refuses to kowtow to Washington. BTW, I see that Stratfor is a corporation, whereas it is really owned and operated essentially only by one man, you. Aren’t corporations often used to hide income?

BTW, I bet most of my readers have heard that Putin is sitting on at least a $40 billion fortune. This myth is masterfully put to rest by Alexander Mercouris, who writes (all emphasis mine):

The first time I heard allegations that Putin was a billionaire was in 2006 when they were made by an individual called Stanislav Belkovsky.

Belkovsky was an associate of the exiled Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky.  He was one of Russia’s original “political technologists” (ie. spin-doctors) whose heyday was in the 1990s.  Belkovsky was also the first person to put a figure on Putin’s billions.  He said Putin was worth $40 billion and was the richest man in Europe.

Belkovsky has at various times put Putin’s wealth even higher.  On occasion he has put it as high as $70 billion and occasionally figures as high as $200 billion get quoted.

The figure of $40 billion however appears to have stuck and this is the most commonly cited figure for Putin’s wealth amongst those who believe the allegations against him are true.

Belkovsky’s claims centred on a company called Gunvor, a major international commodities trader dealing mainly in oil products which is registered in Switzerland.  

Belkovsky claimed that Putin owned a large share of Gunvor and that Gennady Timchenko – a Russian businessman who was one of Gunvor’s co-founders and co-owners – was in reality Putin’s front man.

This claim is nonsense. 

Mercouris then says that the US Treasury started to regurgitate this lie and use it against Putin and other prominent Russians. Later, he says that The Economist, a notorious anti-Russian rag with a glossy reputation that it does not deserve, inserted this myth in the pages of one of its editions. The article goes on:

In 2009 the allegations that Putin owned an interest in Gunvor became the subject of a libel action between Gunvor and The Economist which in an article it published in November 2008 appeared to lend weight to Belkovsky’s allegations.

The libel action ending with The Economist publishing an apology and retraction in which it admitted that Putin has no interest in Gunvor.  The Economist’s statement of retractionreads as follows:

“In a section of our special report on Russia entitled “Grease my palm” (29 November 2008) we referred to Gunvor and its co-founder, Gennady Timchenko. 

We are happy to make it clear that when we referred to the “new corruption” in today’s Russia, we did not intend to suggest that either Gunvor or Mr Timchenko obtained their Russian oil business as a result of payment by them of bribes or like corrupt inducements. 

Rosneft sells only 30-40% of its oil through Gunvor rather than the “bulk” of Rosneft’s oil (as we described it). 

We accept Gunvor’s assurances that neither Vladimir Putin nor other senior Russian political figures have any ownership interest in Gunvor. We regret if any contrary impression was given.”

 Mercouris goes on to report that this libel suit did not put an end to the $40 billion myth and that both the US government and the Neocon press continued to perpetuate it. The article is full of details on other anti-Russian myths that were similarly discredited but continue to circulate because of the disgraceful disdain that Western elites have for the truth.

Older posts «

» Newer posts