Anti-Russianism is every bit as dangerous as anti-Semitism

Anti-Russian is as bad as anti-Jewish. Both are dangerous

by Don Hank

After I published yesterday’s article, titled “RT condemned as anti-Jewish for copying a Jewish newspaper’s headline verbatim,” I received another email from the Russia-hating friend who had alerted me to the article condemning RT for its headline. She said that Ha’aretz is a leftist site, implying that it is not representative of the Israeli people. Let me ask then – suspending disbelief and assuming it does not represent Israel – why did CAMERA not criticize Ha’aretz in addition to RT? Further, after receiving that email, I found another Israeli site that also ran that same offending headline. So you have two Israeli sites running a headline and no one bats an eyelash, but when RT publishes verbatim the news feed from one of them, they are condemned as being “dramatically absurd.”  I don’t know how absurd can be dramatic (the language is suspiciously reminiscent of Accuracy in Media), but if there is such a concept, then should it not apply to all offending sites alike, whether Israeli or Russian or whatever? It is clear from the content of the RT article that no offense was intended. I cannot say the same about the statements by CAMERA. And you know what? PM Netanyahu just returned from a meeting with Putin and the web site of the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs today ran a very respectful report on that meeting, in which Netanyahu thanks Putin for his cooperation, and says he expects another 25 years of Israeli-Russian cooperation.

The friend further writes: “Bibi is playing KGB Putin like a fine fiddle!  Americans are NOT taken in by your KGB comrade.”

Now that raises questions. The Russophobes all seem to agree that Putin is deceitful and wants to pull a dirty trick on the West (speculation ranges upwards to a nuclear attack). However, this person, who obviously admires Netanyahu, is saying in her above-cited email, that Netanyahu intends to betray Putin. Now if that were true (and she gives no evidence to back this up), then why condemn Putin for being sneaky and treacherous when she believes the man she admires is also sneaky and treacherous? This just goes to show the irrational and racist double standard applied to Russia.

But beyond that, I do not believe for a minute that either of these gentlemen dislike or mistrust each other. Quite to the contrary, they have cooperated in Syria, where Putin has helped save the lives of Israeli pilots near or in the Golan Heights. Plus, as Putin reminds him at each meeting, both nations have suffered  immensely at the hands of the fascists. I believe that Netanyahu senses a close brotherly bond with Putin and the Russians that results from that historic experience. Further, they are both brave warriors, each in his own way, and each one loves his own country. Moreover, each has reason to fear the other’s military prowess, and this fear has grown into mutual respect. Netanyahu must also know that Putin’s cooperation with Israel has put a strain on Iran-Russia relations and that Putin is willing to accept this strain because  he values his relationship with the PM and with the Israeli people.

Everyone needs to remember the lesson of the Holocaust, namely, that humanity must be constantly wary of any signs of racism and root it out wherever it rears its head. Anti-Jewish speech and actions are routinely referred to as racist (even though Jews do not, strictly speaking, constitute a race). The exact same yardstick must be applied to the Russians, who lost several times more lives in WW II than any other nation. Who therefore know more about war and peace than any other nation. Who are doing the job we should be doing by eliminating ISIS in the Middle East. And who are therefore our natural and logical friends and allies.

We are now closer to a nuclear conflagration than ever before in history, precisely because of the irrational Russia baiting I highlighted in yesterday’s, and now this, article. It is exactly the wrong time to be antagonizing or baiting another nuclear power, even if you don’t like its internal politics or foreign policies.

Pray for peace, friends. Let’s none of us be hatin’ on anyone else.

Matthew 5:46.

Again, all people of good will need to be able to say: God bless Israel! God bless Russia! God bless America!

Neocons farther down the path to extinction

Neocons making progress on the path to extinction

 

by Don Hank

Zero Hedge has just run a commentary entitled “America’s Greatest Threat Is Its Crazed ‘Leadership’ And Its Brainwashed Population”. The following quote from that article best sums up its main point:

QUOTE:

”The sole reason why the USA and Russia have found themselves on a collision course, instead of defusing tensions and cooperating on a wide range of international problems, is the stubborn refusal by the US leadership to accept Russia as an equal partner: Washington is dead set on being the “world leader” and the “indispensable nation,” even as its influence steadily dwindles in the wake of a string of foreign policy and military disasters such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Yemen and the Ukraine. Continued American global leadership is something that neither Russia, nor China, nor most of the other countries are willing to accept. This gradual but apparent loss of power and influence has caused the US leadership to become hysterical; and it is but a small step from hysterical to suicidal. America’s political leaders need to be placed under suicide watch.”

And I would add Kosovo to that list of disasters, for the reasons I detailed here.

People everywhere, both the political analysts and the rest of us, are seeing the light, and the Neocons now clearly are not only on a path to extinction but have in fact progressed quite a ways down that path.  They are exhibiting two different responses to their loss of power, to whit:

1 –  Some stop resisting and admit to themselves that the way forward must be radically different from their past MO; already, the unthinkable has happened: three of the most iconic and powerful Neocons of the last century, ie, Georges Soros and Friedman and Henry Kissinger, have issued nervous warnings that the West cannot afford to antagonize Russia. This happened after they saw Russia send in the supremely deadly S-400 missiles to Syria following the downing of their plane, and following the bold displays of military solidarity  –  joint naval exercises with China and joint military parades in Moscow  –  between Russia and China, both nuclear powers. They knew this was game over. They had gambled that their policies would drive a wedge between the two nations. Instead, these policies pushed them into each other’s arms so to speak. I had detailed this in my commentary of last July, here http://laiglesforum.com/china-an-unreliable-tool-of-the-new-world-order/3428.htm. What I said then just keeps crystallizing.

2  –  The more frightened and bewildered respond hysterically like fanatics  –  like Hitler when he saw he was losing the war he had started. Example: Bill Kristol, who desperately but vainly seeks to start a third party now that anti-Establishment Trump is firmly ensconced in power. He seems not to notice that the rigid warlike policies of the Neocons in the past are precisely what has propelled Trump to the top in a reaction against their insanity. Kristol, whose father Irving was dubbed the “godfather of the Neoconservative movement,” will only accept an establishment candidate of the GW Bush type. Yet the vast majority of our last GOP crop were precisely of this type and were roundly rejected by the now-more-savvy public, many of whom have learned the difference between Neocon and conservative. It would appear that the ancien régime has no place to turn or hide.

In a sense, Trump and Putin, though vastly different in temperament and ideology, have created the conditions for a perfect storm for them.

Don Hank

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.

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.

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

 

Is it too late?

Is it too late?

I hate to ask that question. I was thrilled when big bad Dede Scozzafava stepped down and handed over the Republican candidacy to Doug Hoffman.

That is because I knew Hoffman had said he was pro-life and, like many others, just assumed he was an all-around conservative. I should have realized that could not be true, because Doug has an R after his name and R stands for Neocon.

Americans respond favorably to politicians who speak their minds – the minds of Americans that is.

But I found a long time ago that GOP candidates routinely speak our minds but vote their minds, and pro-lifers are often one-issue voters.

I had said before that if a candidate said he was pro-life (lip service is all most pro-life voters require, not much proof), but was also weak on borders or favored amnesty, then ultimately, probably not one life would be saved, but worse, the US would be another step closer to world government, whose advocates start by erasing borders and diluting culture (the rest is easy). Since I have long observed Europe, I know what that means: dictatorship. The “nations” of Europe are no longer sovereign in any sense of that word. Even if “national” legislators were pro-life, since the central government controls everything, they can do end-runs around any “national” legislation, because all legislation must be “harmonized” to EU directives. Even electing more conservative MEPs (members of European Parliament) has no real meaning, because the central European Commission is the only body empowered to draft legislation. Thus these MEPs can only vote yea or nay on legislation drafted by zombies who despise patriotism and never once doubted the wisdom of a strong centralized government that is just one step away from world government. It is, my friends, a dictatorship – sort of like the “People’s” Republic of Wherever, where the people have the right to pay their taxes and obey the law, or else.

Why do I talk so much about Europe, you say?

Because soon we will be indistinguishable from them and then merge with them – unless we stop the 2 party fraud.

When a pro-choice far-left Dede Scozzafava is replaced by a weak-kneed Doug Hoffman, that is a bait and switch. The “people” think they have won a round, but the fact is, they have been set up.

I have no quick answers here but one thing I would do immediately is stop voting for anyone in the GOP. They are incapable of respecting the Constitution, because that would mean “offending” too many people.

Here is the game plan: we offend and obey the Constitution or we grovel and die like Europe.

I am grateful to my mentor Dave Levine for the following no-punches-pulled article.

Don Hank

 

Doug Hoffman, Milquetoast Conservative for Congress (by Dave Levine as a “special” to The Dave Levine Show)

By Dave Levine

I’ve been in contact with the Doug Hoffman Campaign the last few days. I was hoping to interview him on my show. However, I’ve withdrawn that offer for one, simple reason: Doug Hoffman is an “anything but the Libtard” candidate. He is NOT a conservative! He’s just another milquetoast New York Republican with some conservative positions. Visit his website. His position on illegal immigration is chocked full of fallacies including the false accusation that anti-Invasion folks like me want to stop all immigration. He seems to be lumping illegal immigration with legal immigration and he appears to be proposing Amnesty.

To wit:

Q. Where do you stand on illegal immigration?

Hoffman: “There is no question that our immigration policies are flawed. The answer, though, is not to put up a wall and stop all immigration. The answer is to create an easier path for immigrants to enter the United States – and to work here – while at the same time getting tough on illegal immigrants who commit crimes.”

My thanks to Hanen at Sentinel Radio for the above quote from Hoffman and the link to his positions page below. She also emailed me this blog with some very interesting comments:

http://thedavelevineshow.ning.com/profiles/blogs/doug-hoffman-milquetoast-1