Editorial Board

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

 

en it comes to CNN, you have to keep two things in mind. 1) The Least Trusted Name In News will only ever jump on stories or angles that offer the Left political upside, and 2) in service to its political agenda, The Last Place Network is unconcerned with the sexual degradation of children. How else to explain CNN's fury over Fox News covering what CNN refused to cover, the alleged gang rape of a 14 -ear-old committed by two illegal aliens?

Newsbusters:

Just when you thought CNN host Brian Stelter couldn’t become any more of a “ridiculous figure” he found a new level of low to crawl to, during Sunday’s Reliable Sources. As had been extensively covered by the MRC, the liberal networks have been blacking out the rape of a girl on school ground by illegal immigrants in Rockville, Maryland, with Fox News being the only TV news outlet covering it in detail. But according to Stelter, that’s apparently a problem for Fox.

“Rapes and assaults and murders are local news stories on a daily basis. But when do they break through to become national news and when do they not?” he wondered at the top of the segment and before taking it to Fox.

Ah, yes… Stelter whips out the old "local news stories" ruse.

Odd that, because…

Sanctuary cities violate federal immigration law, which is a national story.

Odd that, because…

When it comes to "local new stories," CNN was more than happy to utilize its Fake News Hate-Machine to gin up local race riots in local black neighborhoods, help to destroy a local Christian-run pizzeria, declare a local cop killer "courageous and brave," and fabricate evidence in a local Florida shooting...

 

 

But that is where CNN's focus only on what offers political upside comes into play. CNN is justifiably concerned that once voters are informed of the horror stories (and they are legion) emanating from these Democrat-run sanctuary cities, that once voters learn the truth of the human fallout within these three hundred-plus outlaw cities that allow known criminal illegals to run around free, it might help President Trump, who has made sanctuary cities one of his top priorities.

Unfortunately, like all soulless Leftists, CNN believes that as long as it is "other people's" jobs being taken by illegals, and "other people's" wages being artificially-suppressed by a flood of cheap labor, and "other people's" children being deprived of an education in urban schools buried in illegals who cannot speak English, and "other people's" loved ones being murdered and raped in these sanctuary cities, it is well worth it.

It all comes down to political power.

Most illegals are Hispanic and about two-thirds of Hispanics vote for Democrats and a whole lot of Hispanic illegal aliens appear to already be voting illegally -- or will be if CNN wins its push to make them all citizens -- so what's a few murders and rapes if it means bringing in millions of potential Democrat voters?

Going back to the Civil War, this is exactly what Democrats did to hold on to their slaves in the South. This group of sanctuary cities is nothing more than the Confederacy 2.0 -- another place where Democrats can exploit cheap, non-white labor as a means to hold on to political power.

Therefore, a 14-year-old girl being gang-raped in her own high school by two alleged illegal aliens is not only a politically inconvenient story for a CNN… Truth be told, to CNN it is really a non-story.

After all, If CNN is going to usher in its vision of a Brave New World, it will just have to become a fact of life that 12-year-old girls and 14-year-old girls will be broken in order to create that social justice omelet.

Any other question about why I call CNN "Hitler?"

 

BY: John Nolte

Follow John Nolte on Twitter @NolteNC. Follow his Facebook Page here.

 

 

 

Virtually every crazy policy, corrupt courtroom ruling, or depraved piece of legislation that plagues our political climate is a product of modern liberalism. Whether killing children in the womb, killing small businesses, legally redefiningthe oldest institution in the history of humanity, legalizing and promoting a wide variety of sexual immoralities, criminalizing (or attempting to criminalize) the life-blood of American industry, criminalizing Christianity, stealing money from one group of constituents to buy votes from another, and so on, liberals and their lackeys in the Democratic Party, the mainstream media, and academia have used their political, information, and entertainment powers in manners most perverse.

To a great extent, this is why the GOP is in unprecedented territory when it comes to political power. Except for the Northeast, the West Coast, and most large cities, the GOP brand dominates, whether local, state, or federal offices, across the U.S.  I believe this has happened not because of any special degree of governing competence held by Republicans (as their recent health care failuredemonstrates), but because of the special degree of incompetence and immorality possessed by today’s Democrats. As Marvin Olasky put it, “Republicans cannot be trusted to do the right thing. Democrats can be trusted almost always to do the wrong thing.”

I believe most Americans -- especially those voting for Republicans -- would agree with me: A politician is like a plunger -- a tool that you would rather not be without, but one that you almost never want to have to use. Even Christ-denier Thomas Paine understood, “Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.” Ironically, and contrary to one of their highest ideals, American Democrats have simply made their politics “intolerable.” And currently, the GOP is the best tool we have to fix what the Democrats have wrecked.

Granted, this is a tall task, for there is much to do, and in spite of their heavy losses, Democrats seem determined to continue with their radical liberal agenda. There has been little self-assessment by Democrats since November 8. On the contrary, the election of Donald Trump as President of the United States and the widespread electoral success of the GOP throughout America has led many liberals to new and greater heights of unhinged behavior and rhetoric.

Spurred on by virtually no real evidence, and because they have made a god of government (and thus, are almost completely incapable of handling political defeat), liberal pundits across the U.S. have spilled gallons of ink desperately attempting to blame Hillary Clinton’s loss to Donald Trump on some nefarious conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Because they are devoted to the “theology of self,” fragile campus snowflakes across America are suppressing -- violently in some cases -- any form of speech (political, religious, et al) that they find “offensive.”

 

Nothing illustrates the lunacy and “unhingedness” of today’s liberals better than the newest front in the perverse LGBT agenda. Modern liberalism has gone so far off the deep end that we have “progressed” from debating the climate, guns, abortion, marriage, and the like, to debating what is a male and what is a female.I’ve chronicled this a couple of times recently, but it seems every week now there is a new story where those corrupted by liberalism have allowed men to take trophies from women, or violated the sanctity of bathrooms and locker rooms --even where children are concerned -- all in the name of “tolerating” madness.

Liberals have even injected the politics of gender into the current NCAA men’s basketball tournament. After Duke’s loss to South Carolina in the second round of the tournament, many observers -- fans and pundits alike -- blamed the loss on the state of North Carolina’s “bathroom bill.” (The game was played in South Carolina instead of North Carolina because the NCAA is “discriminating” against the state of North Carolina.) Duke coach Mike Krzyzewski himself has called North Carolina’s common sense law against men using women’s restrooms “stupid.” Hey Coach K, the definition of “stupid:” To think that this man is somehow now a “woman” and has the “right” to use a women’s restroom, etc.

However, the madness has only just begun. Just wait until there is consensus on real health care reform by Trump and the GOP-led U.S. Congress. Just wait until there is real tax reform. Just wait until construction on a border wall begins. Just wait until President Trump gets to appoint a second justice to the U.S. Supreme Court. And can you imagine the size of the “safe space” necessary if a conservative-led Supreme Court of the United States overturns the infamous Roe v. Wade and Obergefell rulings? If you think you’ve seen campus fires now, just wait.

As such things come to pass, the violence, riots, “nastiness,” and vile speechwe’ve already witnessed will pale in comparison to what will come. We should expect nothing less from a movement that has abandoned virtually every measure of sound science and morality. So take heed, Washington Republicans: be ready for attacks, protests, filibusters, lies, smears, irrational arguments, and dirty tricks of virtually every form imaginable. Be ready to defend yourself and conservative principles and policies. In other words, stand strong and be ready to fight. Whether it’s health care, tax law, foreign policy, the courts, the Justice Department, the military, and so on, we conservatives who voted for you want smaller, smarter, and moral government. This is exactly what republicans have been elected to do.

 

BY: Trevor Thomas

Trevor Grant Thomas; At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com ; Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

 

Everyone knows that a competent lawyer never asks a question in court to which he doesn’t already know the answer. And likewise, a competent political leader never puts a piece of legislation up for a vote without having a good idea of what the vote will be. But when Paul Ryan released his American Health Care Act he evidently had no idea what its reception would be. Whole sections of his own party were angered, and it was obvious that his bill had no chance of passage without truly major changes.

Why didn’t Ryan know all of that before he published the bill? A skilled leader sounds out the major opinion centers in his party to get a sense of what it will take to get them all on board, so that by the time the bill is published he knows where everyone stands and how they will vote. By going public with his bill before ascertaining the lay of the land, Ryan has created an ugly rift within his party, delayed and endangered the forward movement of the Trump administration, and further alienated a GOP base which has long been exasperated by the ineffectiveness of its congressional leaders. But Paul Ryan’s political incompetence is by now a very old story.

As the 2016 primary election season was about to begin, Ryan negotiated with the Obama administration an omnibus budget bill once more without bothering to find out what his party would and would not accept. And so he was surprised to find that his Republicans were more than disappointed: they were furious. His agreement funded almost every hot button issue that Obama was desperate to have funded and Republicans were just as determined not to fund: Obama’s illegal executive amnesty was funded, his Muslim refugee program funded, sanctuary cities funded, yet there was no money for a border fence. House Democrats were so delighted that 90% of them voted in favor of the agreement while only 60% of Republicans voted affirmatively, and many of those voted as they did not because they liked the deal, but because they didn’t want to humiliate a new leader. Simmering annoyance with a chronically passive and inept GOP congressional leadership became white hot anger.  This may well have been the point at which Donald Trump’s winning the party nomination became inevitable. Ryan could not have done more to promote his candidacy.

Ryan’s own explanation of what he had done made things worse: he was excited at having secured the extension of some relatively circumscribed tax breaks—breaks applicable to particular business situations, not to the general public. In exchange for these he had given away everything his party’s voters cared deeply about. Ryan had demonstrated that he is a wonk and number-cruncher so focused on budgetary detail that he loses sight of political reality: he is politically tone-deaf.

The same wonkish narrow vision and consequent political blindness was already apparent in 2012 when in the middle of an election season in which he was a Vice-Presidential candidate, again without first getting his colleagues on board, Ryan suddenly proposed a radical reform of Medicare. His colleagues immediately found themselves having to deal with the fallout (in mid-election) from Ryan’s politically hazardous proposal.  It was one more demonstration of Ryan’s lack of political judgment: he had had what he thought was a good idea, and so floated it, without the slightest regard for the political context.

 

 

Yet another instance of Ryan’s lack of political antennae came when in 2015 Kevin McCarthy blew up his candidacy for the Speakership with his major political gaffe concerning the Benghazi committee. Virtually everyone knew instantly that the party must look elsewhere for a Speaker: McCarthy was so obviously unable to speak carefully that he could never be the party’s spokesman. But the political reality seen by everyone else was invisible to Ryan, who now wrote an op-ed enthusiastically promoting McCarthy’s candidacy for Speaker, just as everyone else was concluding that this would be a horrible mistake. There would have been open rebellion in the GOP had McCarthy been elected Speaker.

Ryan’s political tin ear has at least temporarily torpedoed of the effort to repeal and replace Obamacare. It has already begun to endanger the prospects for corporate tax reform. Nothing is more important for the Trump administration than getting corporate taxes down from their present absurdly high level, as well as getting corporate profits held abroad repatriated by reducing the punitive tax rates to which they would be subjected. Trump needs these reforms immediately so that the economy can get into high gear quickly enough to ensure that Republican House and Senate majorities survive the mid-term elections.

But once again Ryan the political klutz has delayed progress on tax reform by tying these desperately needed measures to his wildly unpopular “border adjustment.” That wonkish term will scarcely endear itself either to the many who don’t know what to make of it because they have never heard it before, or to those who understand that it represents an attempt to avoid words like “tariff” or “taxes” that would never appeal to growth–oriented Republicans. Yet again, Ryan’s “border adjustment” was floated without his having done a political leader’s essential homework: he never bothered to find out how it would go down with his members before going public with it, and so has caused a nasty, time-consuming, and wholly unnecessary internecine fight among Republicans.

With control of House, Senate and the Presidency, and with so much that cries out to be done after eight years of Obama inaction and/or mismanagement, Republicans have a golden opportunity to advance their own electoral fortunes by doing well for their country. But all of this is endangered by the fact that their major congressional leader is a man without political instincts, skills, or judgment. It’s unfair to say that he is a RINO, or to question his value to the party as the source of ideas that are sometimes very useful. But it is not unfair to say that he is a policy wonk who is in the wrong job. Wonks come up with ideas and hope that others will be persuaded by them. Political leaders have a quite different job to do: they must manage the political process by which those ideas may or may not come to fruition. Ryan is good in the first of these roles, and horribly unsuited to the second. He still behaves like a wonk and so regularly produces political chaos.

The failure of the AHCA was Ryan’s failure, not Trump’s: all of Trump’s negotiating skills and heroic efforts could not redeem the mess that Ryan had created. Much will now depend on whether congressional Republicans understand that they must find themselves a new Speaker if they and the President are not to suffer one embarrassing setback after another.

 

By John Ellis

John M Ellis is a Professor Emeritus at the University of California, Santa Cruz, and Chairman of the California Association of Scholars.

 

 

A civil war has begun.

This civil war is very different than the last one. There are no cannons or cavalry charges. The left doesn’t want to secede. It wants to rule. Political conflicts become civil wars when one side refuses to accept the existing authority. The left has rejected all forms of authority that it doesn’t control.

The left has rejected the outcome of the last two presidential elections won by Republicans. It has rejected the judicial authority of the Supreme Court when it decisions don’t accord with its agenda. It rejects the legislative authority of Congress when it is not dominated by the left.

It rejected the Constitution so long ago that it hardly bears mentioning.  

It was for total unilateral executive authority under Obama. And now it’s for states unilaterally deciding what laws they will follow. (As long as that involves defying immigration laws under Trump, not following them under Obama.) It was for the sacrosanct authority of the Senate when it held the majority. Then it decried the Senate as an outmoded institution when the Republicans took it over.

It was for Obama defying the orders of Federal judges, no matter how well grounded in existing law, and it is for Federal judges overriding any order by Trump on any grounds whatsoever. It was for Obama penalizing whistleblowers, but now undermining the government from within has become “patriotic”.

There is no form of legal authority that the left accepts as a permanent institution. It only utilizes forms of authority selectively when it controls them. But when government officials refuse the orders of the duly elected government because their allegiance is to an ideology whose agenda is in conflict with the President and Congress, that’s not activism, protest, politics or civil disobedience; it’s treason.

After losing Congress, the left consolidated its authority in the White House. After losing the White House, the left shifted its center of authority to Federal judges and unelected government officials. Each defeat led the radicalized Democrats to relocate from more democratic to less democratic institutions.

This isn’t just hypocrisy. That’s a common political sin. Hypocrites maneuver within the system. The left has no allegiance to the system. It accepts no laws other than those dictated by its ideology.

Democrats have become radicalized by the left. This doesn’t just mean that they pursue all sorts of bad policies. It means that their first and foremost allegiance is to an ideology, not the Constitution, not our country or our system of government. All of those are only to be used as vehicles for their ideology.

 That’s why compromise has become impossible.

Our system of government was designed to allow different groups to negotiate their differences. But those differences were supposed to be based around finding shared interests. The most profound of these shared interests was that of a common country based around certain civilizational values. The left has replaced these Founding ideas with radically different notions and principles. It has rejected the primary importance of the country. As a result it shares little in the way of interests or values.

Instead it has retreated to cultural urban and suburban enclaves where it has centralized tremendous amounts of power while disregarding the interests and values of most of the country. If it considers them at all, it is convinced that they will shortly disappear to be replaced by compliant immigrants and college indoctrinated leftists who will form a permanent demographic majority for its agenda.

But it couldn’t wait that long because it is animated by the conviction that enforcing its ideas is urgent and inevitable. And so it turned what had been a hidden transition into an open break.

In the hidden transition, its authority figures had hijacked the law and every political office they held to pursue their ideological agenda. The left had used its vast cultural power to manufacture a consensus that was slowly transitioning the country from American values to its values and agendas. The right had proven largely impotent in the face of a program which corrupted and subverted from within.

The left was enormously successful in this regard. It was so successful that it lost all sense of proportion and decided to be open about its views and to launch a political power struggle after losing an election.

The Democrats were no longer being slowly injected with leftist ideology. Instead the left openly took over and demanded allegiance to open borders, identity politics and environmental fanaticism. The exodus of voters wiped out the Democrats across much of what the left deemed flyover country.

The left responded to democratic defeats by retreating deeper into undemocratic institutions, whether it was the bureaucracy or the corporate media, while doubling down on its political radicalism. It is now openly defying the outcome of a national election using a coalition of bureaucrats, corporations, unelected officials, celebrities and reporters that are based out of its cultural and political enclaves.

 

It has responded to a lost election by constructing sanctuary cities and states thereby turning a cultural and ideological secession into a legal secession. But while secessionists want to be left alone authoritarians want everyone to follow their laws. The left is an authoritarian movement that wants total compliance with its dictates with severe punishments for those who disobey.

The left describes its actions as principled. But more accurately they are ideological. Officials at various levels of government have rejected the authority of the President of the United States, of Congress and of the Constitution because those are at odds with their radical ideology. Judges have cloaked this rejection in law. Mayors and governors are not even pretending that their actions are lawful.

The choices of this civil war are painfully clear.

We can have a system of government based around the Constitution with democratically elected representatives. Or we can have one based on the ideological principles of the left in which all laws and processes, including elections and the Constitution, are fig leaves for enforcing social justice.

But we cannot have both.

Some civil wars happen when a political conflict can’t be resolved at the political level. The really bad ones happen when an irresolvable political conflict combines with an irresolvable cultural conflict.

That is what we have now.

 

 

The left has made it clear that it will not accept the lawful authority of our system of government. It will not accept the outcome of elections. It will not accept these things because they are at odds with its ideology and because they represent the will of large portions of the country whom they despise.

The question is what comes next.

The last time around growing tensions began to explode in violent confrontations between extremists on both sides. These extremists were lauded by moderates who mainstreamed their views. The first Republican president was elected and rejected. The political tensions led to conflict and then civil war.

The left doesn’t believe in secession. It’s an authoritarian political movement that has lost democratic authority. There is now a political power struggle underway between the democratically elected officials and the undemocratic machinery of government aided by a handful of judges and local elected officials.

What this really means is that there are two competing governments; the legal government and a treasonous anti-government of the left. If this political conflict progresses, agencies and individuals at every level of government will be asked to demonstrate their allegiance to these two competing governments. And that can swiftly and explosively transform into an actual civil war.

There is no sign that the left understands or is troubled by the implications of the conflict it has initiated. And there are few signs that Democrats properly understand the dangerous road that the radical left is drawing them toward. The left assumes that the winners of a democratic election will back down rather than stand on their authority. It is unprepared for the possibility that democracy won’t die in darkness.

Civil wars end when one side is forced to accept the authority of the other. The left expects everyone to accept its ideological authority. Conservatives expect the left to accept Constitutional authority. The conflict is still political and cultural. It’s being fought in the media and within the government. But if neither side backs down, then it will go beyond words as both sides give contradictory orders.

The left is a treasonous movement. The Democrats became a treasonous organization when they fell under the sway of a movement that rejects our system of government, its laws and its elections. Now their treason is coming to a head. They are engaged in a struggle for power against the government. That’s not protest. It’s not activism. The old treason of the sixties has come of age. A civil war has begun.

This is a primal conflict between a totalitarian system and a democratic system. Its outcome will determine whether we will be a free nation or a nation of slaves.

 

 BY: Daniel Greenfield,

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is a New York writer focusing on radical Islam.

 

 

The point at which the Roman Republic moved from republic to empire is generally placed at the point when the Senate granted Octavian almost unlimited power and he adopted the title Augustus. Some historians argue it was when Caesar crossed the Rubicon or when Octavian defeated Anthony at Actium. The implication is that once the transition was started, there was no turning back. The more useful analysis is to think of it as a process, with roots in the Republic, that evolved to the point where dictatorship was inevitable.

The die was most likely cast when the Republic began to compromise its own rules for limiting and distributing power. The system they had created was a reflection of the tribal realities of the early republic. In order to keep any one family from gaining too much power, they systematically limited the time anyone served in office. The system also forced an apprenticeship on those who went into public life. This had the benefit of making public men buy into the system. Therefore they were willing to defend it.

 

That meant the system had a policing mechanism to sort out enemies before they could cause trouble. An ambitious young man could not skip any steps on his way up the ladder, so once he got up the ladder, he was not agreeing to any changes in the process. Defending the system was a way to defend one’s prerogatives, but also a way to defend the system from lunatics. Verpus Maximus may be smart and talented, but he was not only going to wait his turn, he was going to do all the jobs necessary to prove his worth.

This system started to break down with the rivalry of Sulla and Marius. Sulla was the first man to hold the office of consul twice. He also got away with marching an army on Rome itself, in order to defeat his rival, Marius. Both of these acts were supposed to be disqualifying, but exceptions were made for expediency. Sulla sided with the Senate so the Senate bent the rules to serve themselves. A good case can be made that this is the point when it was all over for the Republic.

It was just a matter of time before someone used Sulla as a precedent.

 

 

It is a good lesson to keep in mind as the politicians in the Imperial Capital wrangle over what could be a very dangerous scandal for them.

House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes declared Wednesday that members of Donald Trump’s transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under inadvertent surveillance following November’s presidential election.

The White House and Trump’s allies immediately seized on the statement as vindication of the president’s much-maligned claim that former President Barack Obama wiretapped Trump Tower phones — even though Nunes himself said that’s not what his new information shows.

Democrats, meanwhile, cried foul.

Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the top Democrat on the intelligence panel, cast doubt on Nunes’ claims in a fiery statement and blasted the chairman for not first sharing the information with him or other committee members.

Schiff also slammed Nunes for briefing the White House on Wednesday afternoon given that the Intelligence Committee is in the middle of an investigation into Russia’s meddling in the 2016 election, including possible collusion with the Trump team.

The political class chased Nixon out of town for talking about the use of the FBI and CIA as weapons against political opponents. The rule in politics has been that the use of the IRS or the intelligence agencies was expressly prohibited. There could be no exceptions for obvious reasons, as it would give these bureaucracies dangerous power. That was the lesson of Hoover. If the CIA or IRS are allowed to use their powers to gather dirt on elected officials, then they can control elected officials. That’s the end of democracy.

Of course, there’s another reason to take certain weapons off the table in politics. That’s self-preservation. In prior ages, where the winners had the losers killed, the challengers would always have as their goal, the death of the current ruler. That prompted the ruler to get ahead of the curve and have any potential challengers killed before they could be any trouble. This was Stalin’s game and he just about gutted the intellectual and political elite of Russia in the process. They still have not recovered from it.

That’s what makes this so dangerous. It’s now clear what happened. The Obama people started spying on Trump once he had the nomination or perhaps even earlier. They may have started earlier with an eye on helping the Republicans knock him off in the primary, but that’s not clear. They figured that Clinton was a lock so they were not careful about covering their tracks. The Clinton people are as dirty as it gets so they were not going to be ratting on anyone over it. If anything, they would expand on it.

This is where the Russian hacking story comes into the picture. Once disaster struck and Team Obama realized they had a problem, they needed cover, so they started with the Russian hacking nonsense. They would then claim that it was all an accident and they were just trying to prevent Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale from attacking our democracy! It’s also why Obama signed a retroactive Executive Order giving cover to the intel agencies for their domestic spying activities. They were creating a cover story.

The complication is that it appears that at least one person has perjured himself over this and that one person is FBI Director Comey. There’s no way to square his testimony with these new revelations. The best he can do is split hairs and claim he was not part of the spying effort. Of course, there’s no way to touch him as he runs the FBI. In fact, there’s no way to investigate any of the intelligence organizations. This is the point where many of the robot historians of the future will say the American political class murdered itself.

Unless there is some will to address it, and that’s highly unlikely, we now have a new normal where highly politicized intelligence agencies are used by both sides to discredit one another and discredit any attempts to reform the system. It’s no longer a game of rules. It is a zero-sum game of power and that cycle only ends one way: with someone marching their army on the capital and taking control. As with Rome, whoever emerges as the dictator will not have murdered the system. The system will have murdered itself.

 

Reprinted from The Z-Man Blog.

 

Thursday, 23 March 2017 08:36

Anti-Russian Witch Hunts

 

In order for an ancient tribe to successfully eat or purge a scapegoat, the community first had to scandalize their target with a lying accusation—that the victim was guilty of high crimes against the very social order of the land. This is what is behind the envious mobs and the media priests’ daily work to tie Trump and any of his allies to rumors of “Russian hacking of the election.” The election ritual is the life of the state and its order.

The established media and political hegemony are trying to stab as many pin pricks into Trump as possible with the goal of fashioning him into an agent of an enemy Other who is disturbing the essential sacred ritual of elections. This is all about setting him up for a great devouring to provide orgasmic catharsis on the part of those who covet his power and the state of being they perceive it providing.

One does not have to share Trump’s ideology to see this sorry human anthropological fact and pity all parties involved.

My question is: when will we all stop playing this game of hate and blame and realize how absolutely stupid the state makes us? I mean, not the state itself as some alien entity foisted upon us. But the sacred love of power we all tend to have and manifest into a monopoly on violence we call the state.

The mindlessness of the rumors are embarrassing. The millions of leftists now constantly hallucinating about Russian specters in the reflections of their socially aware soy lattes do not actually care about Russia all of a sudden. They only know what the TV’s like what, six multinational corporations and their Internet extensions tell them: Russia hates gays. Russia loves Trump. Trump stands in the way of my vicarious identity avatar being in the highest symbolic seat of power in the world. Therefore, denial, anger, paranoia, hate.

Similarly, the right’s newfound infatuation with Putin is not based on any real knowledge of the man, only that their chosen avatar indicates a friendly air towards him and that Putin foiled many of their past scapegoat Obama’s machinations.

Do you realize we could pick any country on the map and with enough time of media cookie cutter scandals and marketing words like “butcher,” “threat to democracy,” “thug,” etc. we could get any of these tribes to support violently sanctioning said country, and with another few rumors and allegations, get popular support for violent meddling, a coup, or some other intervention?

Don’t believe me. Ask Assad, he was just dining with Kerry and his wife until his luck ran out in the face of our imperial cult’s financial interests. The same goes for Gaddafi, Hussein, Mossadegh.

Most Americans knew very little why they should support the murder of these individuals and the violent destruction of these foreign rivals. They fell under a trance of groupthink. An ecstasy of oneness that occurs when they are transported by their frustrated mundane lives to a higher plain of justice and blood vengeance for national greatness.

Still, support for acts of war like airstrikes, no-fly zones, and sanctions that starve millions of innocent families are always most fervent and forbearing with the party that shares the same brand with the occupant of the presidency. They imitate their avatar’s resolute righteousness often til the bitter end even as the war high’s diminishing trip reveals itself with photos of carnage coming in steadily with no accompanying tangible benefits from the mission.

Trump, for all his many foreign policy faults, has so far refused to play the standard bipartisan script on targeting a new scapegoat in Putin. So it’s given the media and Washington order, who didn’t get the memo that the script had changed, an occasion to scandalize him. Just think, what would happen if a Rubio or Clinton was in office? Would any of the media question or work hard to daily scrutinize challenge, and “fact check” the standard script of Russian intervention both perform? Of course not. And would much of the Republican base stand in opposition to increased sanctions against Russia and no-fly zones in Syria? Hardly.

Do we see the insanity of this whole ruse? People’s passionate opinions are not really their opinions. They are just copying their ideological tribal peers so they can share the pleasure of hating and venting their frustrations onto someone else. That is not a defect in our modern democratic process. That is its masterful design working perfectly.

Humans have always found unity and satisfaction in finding a common villain to scandalize. This ganging up and shaming and pouring every ounce of wrath in oneself onto a common enemy is an ancient practice that dates back to the very origin of human culture. Evidence of ritual human sacrifice is as ubiquitous to archaic sites as tools and fire-making.

Far from being an odd quirk, sacrifice was the fundamental glue that held these communities together. Tensions always build. Humans are always bound by jealousy and paranoia from comparing themselves to their neighbors. But that tendency to mirror our neighbor is also something that can spill out into a righteous blaming of a common enemy for all of the strife, tension, and fear that consumes our daily lives.

By declaring “It is finished” on human sacrifice and imitating Jesus’s love of enemy, Christianity has slowly eroded the effectiveness and raw brutality of human sacrifice. Western culture experienced the longest sustained infection of Christianity’s anti-sacrificial leavening of strong sacred structures and thus remains the only culture in the world today totally obsessed with self-flagellation of its own ethnocentrism and unfair treatment of minority interests in its history. The only one.

The problem is our culture’s guilt obsession with past mistakes betrays the ultimate conceit: that our public decrying of others’ bad behavior makes us immune. This is a means of gaining power and advantage over others by using victims as a “human shield” of criticism. Jesus dealt with such Victimism as such: “And you say, ‘If we had lived in the days of our ancestors, we would not have taken part with them in shedding the blood of the prophets.’ So you testify against yourselves that you are the descendants of those who murdered the prophets. Go ahead, then, and complete what your ancestors started!” – Matthew Chapter 23 NIV

Victimism is the dominant state religion of the west. It always wails against its forefathers’ abuses as a means of gaming for more power. So Trump can be torn apart by progressives, who marched by the millions in 2004-2006 against Iraq War lies, for daring to seek peace with Russia because he refuses to imitate the cool speech, self-criticism, and solemnity of the office the history book approved politicians of the system always provide.

 

 

In other words, he’s been cast in their favorite show—one that provides the best opium for the masses money can buy. And he’s not playing it right. He’s a bad actor for their sacred theater. He’s not speaking in eloquent, sweet words. So his open self-obsession and Twitter rants sully the sacredness of the state and thus “turns the lights on” to the barbarity and ridiculousness of the whole enterprise.

People get enraged when you take their opium away.

By the way, why do I use “sacred” so much to describe the state, elections, and politics? Because sacred is that which is unquestioned. It is that which is not supposed to be seen or spoken. The sacredness of statecraft is that it is the madness of crowds lusting after power. It is not needed to order society. But do not bother telling its fervent participants that: they need their obsessed rivalry with their enemy tribe, for, in them, they see themselves.

It’s said we are not to discuss politics at dinner.

It’s said we are not to discuss religion at dinner.

But I repeat myself.

The only way to understand politics and its never-ending scandals and hatred is to understand its religious structure.

In the meantime, that’s me in the corner. Losing my religion.

 

Thursday, 23 March 2017 08:30

Trigger-Warning Tyrants

 

People like thinking the best of themselves, which is why we have “trigger warnings,” “microaggressions” and claims of “taking offense” -- so complainers don’t have to see they’re spoiled, self-absorbed, tyrannical brats.

Here’s how it works: when accusing you of “microaggressing,” the truth is that, generally, these snowflakes just don’t happen to like what you’re saying. But shouting “Shut up! I hate that type of expression!” makes you seem intolerant. So to preserve your image and self-image, you use the ploy of shifting the onus onto the one whose speech you want to suppress.

Note that actual ideas are often targeted. Examples are “I believe the most qualified person should get the job” and “Everyone can succeed in this society, if they work hard enough,” which academia has identified as “racial microaggressions.” The principle is: if you can’t refute it, boot it. 

Since coining psychobabble terms is in today, I’ll label this onus-switching “Oppression Transference.” The snowflake oppressor stifles the speech of his victim by making the latter seem the oppressor -- a microaggressor, an agent of triggered feelings or offender in chief.

Another major factor is that, lacking the power of the state, the snowflake has to use social pressure to impose his will. He might just put you in a gulag were he a Stalin, but he’s not, so he shackles you with political correctness.

 
 

Since snowflakes pride themselves on tolerance, it should be emphasized that they don’t even understand the concept. “Tolerance” always implies the abiding of a perceived negative. You’d likely never have to tolerate a fine car or delectable meal, but you would have to tolerate a stubborn cold or bad weather (unless you’re a masochist).

In other words, if, let’s say, you like homosexual behavior or just don’t care about it, that’s not called tolerance; it’s called affinity or indifference. A prerequisite for tolerating it is considering it a negative.

Thus, the true measure of tolerance is how well you handle things you don’t like. And pro tip: if you’re so triggered by “Where are you from?” and “You speak English really well” -- which are also labeled microaggressions -- that you participate in a Stalinesque effort to purge such things from discourse, you’re not just not tolerant; you’re not even tolerable.

Snowflakes are also pathetically self-centered and self-absorbed. If your feelings are hurt by the terms “black hole” or “man up,” well, you need to man up. If you think The Great Gatsby, Mrs. Dalloway, or The Merchant of Venice needs a trigger warning, you’re not just a sniveling little wimp. You also haven’t learned an important life lesson once imparted during toddlerhood: Your feelings just aren’t that important.

There are seven billion people on this planet with seven billion sets of feelings. When snowflakes demand their feelings be the arbiters of policy, they’re saying that their emotions should be preeminent, with others who feel contrary being subordinate. Worse still, they’re saying that their feelings, which are subjective, should trump what should be the yardstick for policy: the objective, principles such as the imperative of encouraging the expression of Truth.

This is the crux of the matter. Saying that something originating within you(feelings) should take precedence over Truth, which exists outside of you, is a universal and is meant to be feelings’ arbiter, is the epitome of self-centeredness.

There is the occasional academic who stands against the snowflake phenomenon, such as Oklahoma Wesleyan University’s great president, Dr. Everett Piper, who penned an open letter to his students titled “This is Not a Daycare. It’s a University!” But modern universities, which now resemble dens of iniquity where all the hookers have Ph.Ds, are generally the problem.

For instance, the term “microaggressions” was popularized by a Columbia University professor, Derald Wing Sue, who got the idea from a more originalIvy League lunkhead. Brown University was content to let students establish “a ‘safe space’ that offered calming music, cookies, Play-Doh, and a video of frolicking puppies to help students cope…,” reported the Telegraph. And institutions of lower learning have created charts of microaggressions so all us bigots can know what not to say. An example is the following from the University of Wisconsin:

As for trigger warnings, there’s an interesting thing about them. The people complaining about the “graphic violence” in The Great Gatsby weren’t raised in a cloistered Amish cocoon; they grew up imbibing the most violent, perverse Hollywood fare imaginable. So I suspect that what really bothers them is something else -- such as the more traditional paradigm for society older works portray.

Tragically, the “educators” facilitating snowflakism are ignorant of the harm they do. The University of North Carolina warns that saying to a woman “I love your shoes!” or “[i]nterrupting a female-identified colleague…” can be a microaggression. So can saying to “a person of African descent: “Can I touch your hair?’” because it sends the message “Your appearance is exotic and foreign to me.”

Okay, but what if my appearance really is exotic and foreign to the person? When I was 19, I visited a rural Taiwanese town, a place where homes still had straw roofs. I was brought to the elementary school, and it just so happened that the children had recess. Circling around me curiously, it was plain they’d never personally seen a blondish white person before. The friend I was with told me they wanted to shake my hand, and, after extending it, it wasn’t long before I had a dozen Chinese lads on each arm screaming and pulling me like it was a tug-of-war. It was a fun experience I’ll never forget.

The point is that this curiosity is normal. And here’s another life lesson: If you can’t understand that or are offended by it, you’re abnormal. Thankfully, this abnormality can be cured.

But here’s where the harm lies. Is a couple, or two friends, closer when there’s nothing they can’t discuss? Or when many subjects are off limits and they must walk on eggs?

By creating the latter situation, the snowflake enablers are actually building walls between people. When you can’t acknowledge obvious differences among people -- whether they relate to race, ethnicity, sex, religion or something else -- you’re playing pretend. Another word for this is pretense, which has as a synonym“charade.” Also note one of its antonyms: honesty. 

How do you combat trigger-warning tyranny? Stop being defensive. The people effecting it are trying to shut you up as they purge Truth from your tongue. They’re using social warfare against you, so strike back; fight fire with fire and put the onus on them. Call them what they are: intolerant, spoiled, self-centered, evil tyrants. Take no prisoners.

Only when these oppressors masquerading as victims are stilling their tongues, fearing the scorn, ostracism and possible career destruction threatening sane people today, will we know we’ve made America great again. Remember, people who cannot be reasoned with, can only be fought.  

 

By Selwyn Duke

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter or log on to SelwynDuke.com

 

 

Was there anyone more pious, anyone more inclined to stroke his chin and intone for guarding national security in the wake of the WikiLeaks revelations than Hillary Clinton campaign manager John Podesta?  Turns out the wily Democrat operative was neck-deep with the Russians he intoned against all along, through a Russian-financed company called Joule, according to a new report from the Daily Caller News Foundation.

The problem here is that the Russian oligarchs he's been consorting with are so dirty that even Putin is after them.  That blows apart Podesta's dishonest narrative about "Russians hacked the election" and rival Donald Trump supposedly colluding with them, but also the issue of Putin's supposed animosity toward Hillary Clinton, as cited by FBI director James Comey Monday.  What may be really going on is Podesta getting caught up in an internal power struggle among the boyars of the Kremlin that's of his own making. 

To hear Podesta tell it, the "narrative" is all about "the Russians" hacking the election.  Here are some choice quotes from Podesta last December:

"We now know that the CIA has determined Russia's interference in our elections was for the purpose of electing Donald Trump," he said in a statement to Politico. "This should distress every American."

Podesta issued his statement in response to letter from Nancy Pelosi's daughter Christine, a voting member of the electoral college, to request a security briefing before she casts a ballot.

 

"We further require a briefing on all investigative findings, as these matters directly impact the core factors in our deliberations of whether Mr. Trump is fit to serve as President of the United States," Pelosi's letter read.

Podesta's statement floats the suggestion that electors could theoretically select a different candidate for president than Donald Trump.

"The bipartisan electors' letter raises very grave issues involving our national security," Podesta said in a statement. "Electors have a solemn responsibility under the Constitution and we support their efforts to have their questions addressed."

It's horse hockey.

Podesta made these remarks even as he had benefited from U.S. tech transfers to Russia's military during the time he sat on the board of a renewable energy company called Joule and had ties to Rusnano, a financing arm known in Moscow as "Putin's baby."  (GOP Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas is calling for an investigation of that, according to the Daily Caller News Foundation report.) Podesta concealed his stock holdings to this company as he joined the Obama administration and still hasn't been held accountable for it.  Yet at the same time, he was around when a lot of quid pro quo involving U.S. tech transfers to Russia was going on, raising significant questions as to whether the U.S. was sold down the river during the Obama administration.

 

 

Here's where it gets interesting.  Chubais is one of the most reviled men in Russia.  He sold billions in state assets to oligarchs and crony capitalists for pennies on the dollar while ordinary Russians got nothing but nightmarish currency devaluation, which destroyed their savings, in Russia's miserable privatization effort from communism back in the 1990s.  He's the man who teamed up with Clinton-linked advisers at Harvard and operated so incompetently that they effectively made Russians hate capitalism.  As a result, the Russians elected Putin in 1999.  Podesta's ties to the Clinton machine's Harvard minions such as Larry Summers amount to ties to Chubais.  Note also that Podesta apparently gives well compensated lectures on energy matters to the school.  Podesta's links to George Soros also lead to Chubais.

Around the time the WikiLeaks emails were hacked, it's worth noting that Chubais and Putin had been in the throes of a falling out, dating from at least 2013.  Putin accused Chubais of being a CIA agent at that time, and in 2015, another Chubais ally, a Rusnano official, was placed under house arrest for embezzlement.  In November 2016, Russia's economy minister, still another Chubais ally, was arrested in November.  Chubais wrote on his Facebook page that it came as "a shock."

The timeframe of these moves roughly coincides with Podesta's time in the White House and the deterioration of Russian-U.S. relations in the failed "reset."  The Democratic players, including Podesta, coincide with Harvard's involvement with Chubais.  It's also worth noting that a four low-level officials were arrested in Moscow for the supposed Russian hacking – something that also could have been a strike against Chubais, because if Putin were hacking, why would he arrest his own hacker?

Keep an eye on this Gohmert investigation.  What emerges from it may put to pasture the ridiculous narrative Podesta is pushing about Russian hacking.  In truth, it may be that he got mixed up with some very gamy characters so bad they've got Putin after them in Moscow.

 

By Monica Showalter

 

 

 

The phenomena of Islamic radicalism all over the world is directly linked to Wahhabi-Salafi madrassahs (religious seminaries) that are generously funded by Saudi and Persian Gulf’s petro-dollars. These madrassahs attract children from the most impoverished backgrounds in the Third World Islamic countries, because they offer the kind of incentives and facilities which even the government sponsored public schools cannot provide: such as, free boarding and lodging, no tuition fee at all and free of cost books and stationery; some generously funded madrassahs even pay monthly stipends to students.

Apart from madrassahs, another factor that promotes Wahhabi-Salafi ideology in the Islamic World is the ritual of Hajj and Umrah (the pilgrimage to Mecca and Medina). Every year, millions of Muslim men and women travel from all over the Islamic World to perform the pilgrimage to Mecca in order to wash their sins.

When they return home to their native countries after spending a month or two in Saudi Arabia, along with clean hearts and souls, dates and zamzam (purified water), they also bring along the tales of Saudi hospitality and their supposedly “true” and puritanical version of Islam, which some Muslims, especially the backward rural and tribal folk, find attractive and worth-emulating.

Authority plays an important role in any belief system; the educated people accept the authority of specialists in their respective field of expertise; similarly, the lay folk accept the authority of theologians and clerics in the interpretation of religion and scriptures. Apart from authority, certain other factors also play a part in the psychology of believers: like, purity or the concept of sacred, and originality and authenticity, as in the conviction of being closely corresponding to an ideal or authentic model.

Yet another factor which contributes to the rise of Wahhabi-Salafi ideology throughout the Islamic world is the immigrants’ factor. Millions of Muslim men, women and families from all over the Third World Islamic countries live and work in the energy-rich Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, Kuwait and Oman. Some of them permanently reside there but mostly they work on temporary work permits.

Just like the pilgrims, when the immigrants return home to their native villages and towns, they also bring along the tales of Saudi hospitality and their version of supposedly “authentic Islam.” Spending time in Gulf Arab States entitles one to pass authoritative judgments on religious matters, and having a cursory understanding of Arabic, the language of Quran, makes one equivalent of a Qazi (a learned jurist) among the illiterate, rural folks; and they simply reproduce the customs and traditions of Arabs as the authentic version of Islam to their rural communities.

The Shi’a Muslims have their Imams and Marjahs (religious authorities) but it is generally assumed about Sunni Islam that it discourages the authority of clergy. In this sense, Sunni Islam is closer to Protestantism, at least theoretically, because it prefers an individual and personalized interpretation of scriptures and religion. Although this perception might be true for the educated Sunni Muslims, but on the popular level of the masses of the Third World Islamic countries, the House of Saud plays the same role in Sunni Islam that the Pope plays in Catholicism.

By virtue of their physical possession of the holy places of Islam – Mecca and Medina – the Saudi kings are the ex officio caliphs of Islam. The title of the Saudi king: “Khadim-ul-Haramain-al-Shareefain” (the Servant of the House of God) makes him the vice-regent of God on earth; and the title of the caliph of Islam is not limited to a single nation state, the Saudi king wields enormous influence throughout the commonwealth of Islam: that is, “the Muslim Ummah.”

Thus, when we hear slogans like “no democracy, just Islam” on the streets of the Third World Islamic countries, one wonders that what kind of a simpleton would forgo one’s right to choose their government through a democratic and electoral process?

 

 

This confusion about democracy is partly due to the fact that the masses often conflate democracy with liberalism without realizing that democracy is only a political process of choosing one’s representatives through an electoral process, while liberalism is a cultural mindset which may or may not be suitable for the backward Third World societies depending on their existing level of cultural advancement.

One feels dumbfounded, however, when even supposedly “educated” Muslims argue that democracy is somehow un-Islamic and that an ideal Islamic system of governance is caliphate. Such an ideal caliphate could be some Umayyad or Abbasid model that they conjure up in their minds, but in practice the only beneficiaries of such an undemocratic approach are the illegitimate tyrants of the Arab World who claim to be the caliphs of Islam, albeit indirectly and in a nuanced manner: that is, the Servants of the House of God and the Keepers of the Holy places of Islam.

The illegitimate, and hence insecure, tyrants adopt different strategies to maintain and prolong their hold on power. They readily adopt the pragmatic advice of Machiavelli to his patrons: “Invent enemies and then slay them in order to control your subjects.”

The virulently anti-Shi’a rhetoric of the Gulf-based Wahhabi-Salafi preachers, who are on the payroll of the Gulf’s petro-monarchies, appears to be a cunning divide-and-rule strategy on the lines of Machiavelli’s advice. The illegitimate autocrats of the Gulf States cannot construct a positive narrative that can recount their own achievements, that’s why they espouse a negative narrative in order to vilify their political adversaries for regional dominance in the Middle East.

The Sunni-Shi’a conflict is essentially a political conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran which is presented to the lay Muslims in the veneer of religiosity. Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest proven petroleum reserves, 265 billion barrels, and its daily crude oil production is more than 10 million barrels (equivalent to 15% of the global crude oil production). However, 90 % of the Saudi petroleum reserves and infrastructure are located along the Persian Gulf’s coast, but this region comprises the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia which has a significant and politically active Shi’a minority.

Any separatist tendency in this Achilles’ heel of Saudi Arabia is met with sternest possible reaction. Remember that Saudi Arabia sent thousands of its own troops to help the Bahraini regime quell the Shi’a rebellion in 2011 in the wake of the Arab Spring uprisings in the Shi’a-majority Bahrain, which is also geographically very close to the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia.

Al-Qaeda inspired terrorism is a threat to the Western countries but the Islamic countries are encountering a much bigger threat of sectarian conflict. For centuries, the Sunni and Shi’a Muslims have coexisted in relative peace throughout the Islamic World but now certain shady forces are deliberately stoking the fire of inter-sectarian strife to distract attention away from the home front: that is, the popular movements for democracy and enfranchisement in the Arab World.

Notwithstanding, Islam is regarded as the fastest growing religion of the 20th and 21st centuries. There are two factors that are primarily responsible for this atavistic phenomena of Islamic resurgence: firstly, unlike Christianity, which is more idealistic, Islam is a practical religion, it does not demands from its followers to give up worldly pleasures but only aims to regulate them; and secondly, Islam as a religion and political ideology has the world’s richest financiers.

After the 1973 collective Arab oil embargo against the West, in the wake of the Arab-Israeli war, the price of oil quadrupled; and the contribution of Gulf’s petro-sheikhs towards “the spiritual well-being” of the Muslims all over the world magnified proportionally. This is the reason why we are witnessing an exponential growth of Islamic charities and madrassas all over the world and especially in the Islamic World.

Finally, it’s a misconception that the Arab sheikhs of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and some emirates of UAE generally sponsor the Wahhabi-Salafi sect of Islam, because the difference between numerous sects of Sunni Islam is more nominal than substantive. Islamic charities and madrassas belonging to all the Sunni denominations get generous funding from the Gulf Arab states as well as private donors.

 

SOURCE: NAUMAN SADIQ, BLACKLISTED NEWS

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and MENA regions, neocolonialism and petroimperialism.

 

 

On 21 October 2016, I headlined “An Email From Lynn Forester de Rothschild to Hillary Clinton, Against Elizabeth Warren” and reported extensive back-door funding of Hillary Clinton by the Rothschild family. 

On 15 December 2016, I headlined “U.S. Gov’t. Is Secretly Allied with America’s Enemies“ and noted that:

Prior to Hillary’s becoming the U.S. Secretary of State, the Clinton Foundation had collected a total of $10 million to $25 million from the Saud family and their vassals (the Sauds’ subordinate aristocrats, such as the bin Ladens — but all from official government accounts). As the U.S. Secretary of State, she and her State Department celebrated in 2011 the Saud family’s purchase of $29.4 billion worth of U.S. Boeing F15-SA bombers (which now were destroying Saudi Arabia’s neighboring country of Yemen, with American bombs); and, as Lee Fang of The Intercept noted about that, “As weapons transfers were being approved, both the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and Boeing made donations to the Clinton Foundation. The Washington Post revealed that a Boeing lobbyist helped with fundraising in the early stages of Hillary Clinton’s current presidential campaign.”

Then, on March 10th, Jack Burns of The Free Thought Project (a left-libertarian organization, which receives no funding from the Kochs or other billionaires) bannered “EXPOSED: Senator John McCain And His Ties To Saudis, Rothschilds” and he documented similar backdoor funding of John McCain.

 

 

John McCain’s father, Admiral John McCain II, headed the official “court of inquiry” into Israel’s 8 June 1967 military assault against the U.S.S. Liberty and he ruled that Israel had merely erred in having slaughtered its 34 U.S. sailors. (It was an entirely unprovoked attack.) However, that ‘finding’ was a cover-up. Ample evidence (such as presented here and here and here) proves that it was intentional and authorized at the top of Israel’s government and why they did it. So, after reviewing that and other evidence, I headlined on 30 September 2016, “Why Does U.S. Gov’t. Donate $38B to an Enemy Nation?” (referring to Obama’s commitment for U.S. taxpayers to donate $38 billion to Israel over the next ten years).

As I explained on 25 December 2015, under the headline “The Saudi Wahhabi Origins of Jihadism”, the Sauds are allied not only with the other fundamentalist-Sunni royal Arab families who own respectively Qatar (Thani), Kuwait (Sabah), and UAE (six royal families in that country), but also with Jewish billionaires, many of whom are American and are major funders of both political parties, just as Christian billionaires are. Israeli politics is largely dominated by Jewish American billionaires, and so the Western Alliance is an alliance of billionaires, who are Roman Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and Sunnis, but they are all united together in supporting neoconservatism — the ultimate goal of conquering Russia — and this means wars to overthrow Russia-friendly leaders, such as Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, Viktor Yanukovych, and Bashar al-Assad. But the billionaires also control the armaments-firms, which need lots of wars — it’s just good business for them to invade and otherwise (such as in coups) overthrow governments that refuse to particpate.

This also is the reason why, as I headlined on 28 January 2017, “Al Qaeda Funded by Royal Sauds, U.S. Gov’t. Documents”, and explained why the U.S. government often protects and even arms Al Qaeda, such as in Syria.

Geostrategy is an international game that is played by billionaires who collectively join together to conquer whatever territory they’ve not yet conquered. The non-billionaire publics are merely the customers and agents for those aristocratic families, or else their cannon-fodder — their taxpayer-funded gangsters hired to kill or else be killed. And, of course, the armaments-firms are controlled by the billionaires, and the profits of those firms also are being paid by the nation’s taxpayers; so, the aristocracies extract from the publics everywhere. There is nothing personal in this: it’s just a bloody game.

And that’s also why, as I headlined on 27 March 2017, “Trump Boosts Most Wasteful Department, Reduces All Others”, and reported that the only U.S. Cabinet Department that’s so corrupt it’s unauditable, the ‘Defense’ Department, is boosted an additional 9% in the new President’s budget, and all of the auditable Departments get their budgets cut. Siphoning from the public can be very profitable business. Unfortunately, it has lots of “collateral damages” (such as bloody corpses, and failed states). But, that’s just business, and even hauling off such wastes can be profitable.

—————

BY: Eric Zuesse

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

 

Page 1 of 2

Shop thru Us - Save $

Top