Archive | April 1st, 2018

Was the Alleged Skripal Poisoning Incident an Elaborate Hoax?



(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at

Was whatever happened on March 4 to father and daughter Skripal something other than what the official narrative reported?

Did anything at all happen? Were the Skripals poisoned or ill for another reason? Did Britain conceal the truth about the whole ugly business – a scheme to frame Russia for what it had nothing to do with?

When inflammatory headlines unquestionably support the official narrative, bet on disinformation and Big Lies substituting for truth-telling.

Russia was framed for perhaps what never happened – at least not as officially claimed.

On March 31, Fort Russ reported that Yulia Skripal, Sergey’s daughter, “visited her ‘Vkontakte’ (social media) page…on the morning of March 7” – three days after the alleged poisoning incident.

The official narrative claimed she and her father were in a coma, poisoned by a deadly military-grade nerve agent.

It’s possible someone else hacked into her site, but for what reason, surely not UK or US operatives, wanting no information conflicting with the official narrative getting out.

If hacking occurred, forensic analysis could determine it, nothing suggesting it so far.

On March 29, Salisbury District Hospital Dr. Christine Blanshard explained Yulia’s condition improved markedly. She’s “conscious and talking,” no longer in critical condition.

Was she ever as ill as officially reported, or if so, what is the hospital’s diagnosis? Will Sergey Skripal’s condition be reported improved ahead, recovering steadily?

Clearly, whatever may have affected them wasn’t a military-grade nerve agent.

They and other Salisbury residents they had contact with would have been dead in minutes if poisoned by something this deadly.

A few obvious lessons can be drawn from the above information.

Never accept official narratives at face value on most everything – including major media reports. Most often they’re meant to deceive, not accurately explain things.

The alleged Skripal incident is the latest US/UK political assault on Russia – public enemy number one in Washington and London.

Almost surely more provocative shoes will drop ahead, likely more serious, the trend heading in this direction.

If Washington could pull off the elaborate mother of all 9/11 false flags, most Americans still believing the official Big Lie, staging the Skripal affair by the US and Britain would be simple by comparison.

Escalating US/UK-led hostility toward Russia heads things perilously toward East/West confrontation – the ominous risk of nuclear war.

That’s the scary reality ahead if madness defining US policy isn’t curbed.

Posted in UKComments Off on Was the Alleged Skripal Poisoning Incident an Elaborate Hoax?

Mass Deception and the Prelude to World War


In Libya, NATO bombed a path to Tripoli to help its proxy forces on the ground oust Gaddafi. Tens of thousands lost their lives and that country’s social fabric and infrastructure now lies in ruins. Gaddafi was murdered and his plans to assert African independence and undermine Western (not least French) hegemony on that continent have been rendered obsolete.

In Syria, the US, Turkey, France, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have been helping to arm militants. The Daily Telegraph’s March 2013 article “US and Europe in ‘major airlift of arms to Syrian rebels through Zagreb’” reported that 3,000 tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia had been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels. The New York Times March 2013 article “Arms Airlift to Syria Rebels Expands, With CIA Aid” stated that Arab governments and Turkey had sharply increased their military aid to Syria’s opposition fighters. This aid included more than 160 military cargo flights.

Sold under the notion of a spontaneous democratic uprising against a tyrannical political leader, Syria is little more than an illegal war for capital, empire and energy. The West and its allies have been instrumental in organising the war as elaborated by Tim Anderson in his book ‘The Dirty War on Syria’.

Over the last 15 years or so, politicians and the media have been manipulating popular sentiment to get an increasingly war-fatigued Western public to support ongoing wars under the notion of protecting civilians or a bogus ‘war on terror’. They spin a yarn about securing women’s rights or a war on terror in Afghanistan, removing despots from power in Iraq, Libya or Syria or protecting human life, while then going on to attack or help destabilise countries, resulting in the loss of hundreds of thousands of civilian lives.

Emotive language designed to instill fear about potential terror attacks in Europe or myths about humanitarianism intervention are used as a pretext to wage imperialist wars in mineral-rich countries and geostrategically important regions.

Part of the battle for the public’s hearts and minds is to keep people confused. They must be convinced to regard these wars and conflicts as a disconnected array of events and not as the planned machinations of empire. The ongoing disinformation narrative about Russian aggression is part of the strategy. Ultimately, Russia (and China) is the real and increasingly imminent target: Moscow has stood in the way of the West’s plans in Syria and both Russia and China are undermining the role of the dollar in international trade, a lynchpin of US power.

The countries of the West are effectively heading for war with Russia but relatively few among the public seem to know or even care. Many are oblivious to the slaughter that has already been inflicted on populations with the help of their taxes and governments in far-away lands. With the reckless neoconservative warmonger John Bolton now part of the Trump administration, it seems we could be hurtling towards major war much faster than previously thought.

Most of the public remains blissfully ignorant of the psy-ops being directed at them through the corporate media. Given recent events in the UK and the ramping up of anti-Russia rhetoric, if ordinary members of the public think that Theresa May or Boris Johnson ultimately have their best interests at heart, they should think again. The major transnational corporations based on Wall Street and in the City of London are the ones setting Anglo-US policy agendas often via the Brookings Institute, Council on Foreign Relations, International Crisis Group, Chatham House, etc.

The owners of these companies, the capitalist class, have off-shored millions of jobs as well as their personal and company tax liabilities to boost their profits and have bankrupted economies. We see the results in terms of austerity, unemployment, powerlessness, privatization, deregulation, banker control of economies, corporate control of food and seeds, the stripping away of civil liberties, increased mass surveillance and wars to grab mineral resources and ensure US dollar hegemony. These are the interests the politicians serve.

It’s the ability to maximise profit by shifting capital around the world that matters to this class, whether on the back of distorted free trade agreements, which open the gates for plunder, or through coercion and militarism, which merely tear them down.

Whether it is the structural violence of neoliberal economic policies or actual military violence, the welfare of ordinary folk around the world does not enter the equation. In an imposed oil-thirsty, war-driven system of globalised capitalism and over-consumption that is wholly unnecessary and is stripping the planet bare, the bottom line is that ordinary folk – whether workers in the West, farmers in India or civilians displaced en masse in war zones like Syria – must be bent according to the will of Western capital.

We should not be fooled by made-for-media outpourings of morality about good and evil that are designed to create fear, outrage and support for more militarism and resource-grab wars. The shaping of public opinion is a multi-million-dollar industry.

Take for instance the mass harvesting of Facebook data by Cambridge Analytica to shape the outcomes of the US election and the Brexit campaign. According to journalist Liam O’Hare, its parent company Strategic Communications Laboratories (SCL) has conducted ‘behavioural change’ programmes in over 60 countries and its clients have included the British Military of Defence, the US State Department and NATO. According to O’Hare, the use of the media to fool the public is one of SCL’s key selling points.

Among its activities in Europe have been campaigns targeting Russia. The company has “sweeping links” with Anglo-American political and military interests. In the UK, the interests of the governing Conservative Party and military-intelligence players are brought together via SCL: board members include “an array of Lords, Tory donors, ex-British army officers and defense contractors.”

O’Hare says it is clear is that all SCL’s activities have been inextricably linked to its Cambridge Analytica arm. He states:

“International deception and meddling is the name of the game for SCL. We finally have the most concrete evidence yet of shadowy actors using dirty tricks in order to rig elections. But these operators aren’t operating from Moscow… they are British, Eton educated, headquartered in the City of London and have close ties to Her Majesty’s government”

So, what are we to make of the current anti-Russia propaganda we witness regarding the nerve agent incident in Salisbury and the failure of the British government to provide evidence to demonstrate Russian culpability? The relentless accusations by Theresa May and Boris Johnson that have been parroted across the corporate media in the West indicate that the manipulation of public perception is everything and facts count for little. It is alarming given what is at stake – the escalation of conflict between the West and a major nuclear power.

Welcome to the world of mass deception à la Edward Bernays and Josef Goebbels.

US social commentator Walter Lippmann once said that ‘responsible men’ make decisions and have to be protected from the ‘bewildered herd’ – the public. He added that the public should be subdued, obedient and distracted from what is really happening. Screaming patriotic slogans and fearing for their lives, they should be admiring with awe leaders who save them from destruction.

Although the West’s political leaders are manipulating, subduing and distracting the public in true Lippmannesque style, they aren’t ‘saving’ anyone from anything: their reckless actions towards Russia could lead towards a war that could wipe out all life on the planet.

Posted in USA, EuropeComments Off on Mass Deception and the Prelude to World War

Nonviolence or Nonexistence? The Legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.


Fifty years ago, on 4 April 1968, the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.was assassinated.

The night before he died, King gave another of his many evocative speeches; this one at the packed Mason Temple in Memphis. The speech included these words:

‘Men for years now have been talking about war and peace. Now no longer can they just talk about it. It is no longer a choice between violence and non-violence in this world, it is non-violence or non-existence. That is where we are today.’

In clearly identifying this stark choice and having been inspired by Mohandas K. Gandhi’s wide-ranging social concerns, King’s concerns were also broad:

‘The Triple Evils of poverty, racism and militarism are forms of violence that exist in a vicious cycle. They are interrelated, all-inclusive, and stand as barriers to our living in the Beloved Community. When we work to remedy one evil, we affect all evils.’ See ‘The King Philosophy’.

So what has changed in the past 50 years? The world has traveled a great deal further down the path of violence. So far, in fact, that nonexistence is now the most likely outcome for humanity. See ‘On Track for Extinction: Can Humanity Survive?’

Despite the vastly more perilous state of our planet, many people and organizations around the world are following in the footsteps of Gandhi, King and other nonviolent luminaries like Silo, and are engaged in what is effectively a last ditch stand to end the violence and put humanity on a path to peace, justice and sustainability.

Let me tell you about some of these people and organizations and invite you to join them.

In Bolivia, Nora Cabero works with the Movimient Humanista. The Movement has many programs including the Convergence of Cultures which aims to facilitate and stimulate true dialogue – oriented towards the search for common points present in the hearts of different peoples and individuals – to promote the relationship between different cultures and to resist discrimination and violence. Another program, World Without Wars and Violence emerged in 1994 and was presented for the first time internationally in 1995 at the Open Meeting of Humanism held in Chile at the University of Santiago. It is active in about 40 countries. It carries out activities in the social base and also promotes international campaigns such as Education for Nonviolence and the World March for Peace and Nonviolence.

Eddy Kalisa Nyarwaya Jr. is Executive Secretary of the Rwanda Institute for Conflict Transformation and Peace Building and also President of the Alternatives to Violence Program. For the past 18 years, he has been active in the fields of ‘peace, reconciliation, nonviolence, healing of societies, building harmonious communities’ in many countries including Burundi, Chad, eastern Congo, Darfur (western Sudan), Kenya, Rwanda, Somalia, South Sudan and northern Uganda. Late last year he was in New Zealand to deliver a paper on the Great Lakes conflict. In Rwanda, the Institute for Conflict Transformation particularly works on nonviolence education in schools, universities and refugee camps. Another initiative is the conduct of workshops on nonviolence and peace through sports for head teachers in the country but it also has programs to fight early marriages and pregnancies, as well as offering trauma counseling to refugees.

In Russia, Ella Polyakova is a key figure at the Soldiers’ Mothers of Saint-Petersburg. Ella and her colleagues work to defend the rights of servicemen and conscripts in the Russian military. Ella explains why:

‘When we were creating our organization, we understood that people knew little about their rights, enshrined in Russia’s Constitution, that the concept of “human dignity” had almost disappeared, that no one had been working with the problems of common people, let alone those of conscripts. We clearly understood what a soldier in the Russian army was a mere cog in the state machine, yet with an assault rifle. We felt how important hope, self-confidence and trust were for every person. At the beginning of our journey, we saw that people around us, as a rule, did not even know what it meant to feel free. It was obvious for us that the path towards freedom and the attainment of dignity was going through enlightenment. Therefore, our organization’s mission is to enlighten people around us. Social work is all about showing, explaining, proving things to people, it is about convincing them. Having equipped ourselves with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Russia’s Constitution, we started to demolish this dispossession belt between citizens and their rights. It was necessary to make sure that people clearly understood that, having a good knowledge of rights, laws, and situations at hand, they would be able to take responsibility and protect themselves from abuse.’

Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, was recently part of a committed effort to convince the Maine state legislature not to give warship-builder General Dynamics, which has already received more than $200 million in state and local tax breaks for the Bath Iron Works (BIW), any more ‘corporate welfare’. Bruce recently completed a fast, which lasted for more than a month, as one of the actions that Maine peace activists took to try to prevent this welfare payment to a company that has spent $14.4 billion buying back its own stocks between 2013-2017 and whose CEO was paid $21 million in 2016.

Despite their efforts, the Maine House of Representatives voted 117-31 in favor of the $45million General Dynamics corporate welfare bill and the Senate supported it 25-9. The decision was announced on the same day that General Dynamics sacked 31 workers from the BIW. As Bruce noted: ‘It was an honor to work alongside [those] who stood up for the 43,000 children living in poverty across Maine, for the tens of thousands without health care, for our starving public education system, and for the crumbling physical infrastructure as Maine joins Mississippi in the “race to the bottom”’. You can read more about this ongoing campaign to convert the Bath Iron Works into a location for the production of socially useful and ecologically sustainable non-killing technologies on the website above. There are some great photos too.

Gaëlle Smedts and her partner Luz are the key figures at Poetry Against Arms based in Germany. ‘The inspiration for this campaign is the life, work and legacy of the Latin American poet, philosopher and mystic: Mario Rodriguez Cobos, also known as Silo. His total commitment to active nonviolence, his denunciation of all forms of violence, his doctrine for overcoming pain and suffering and his magnificent poetry are a great affirmation of the meaning of life and transcendence.’ Poetry Against Arms publishes poetry/songs of people around the world who take action to resist militarism.

Since the 1970s, the world’s leading rainforest activist, John Seed, has devoted his life to saving the world’s rainforests. Founder and Director of the Rainforest Information Centre in Australia, one of his latest projects is to save the tropical Andes of Ecuador, which is ‘at the top of the world list of biodiversity hotspots in terms of vertebrate species, endemic vertebrates, and endemic plants’. From the cloud forests in the Andes to the indigenous territories in the headwaters of the Amazon, the Ecuadorean government has covertly granted mining concessions to over 1.7 million hectares (4.25 million acres) of forest reserves and indigenous territories to multinational mining companies in closed-door deals without public knowledge or consent. These concessions will decimate headwater ecosystems and biodiversity hotspots of global significance. If you would like to read more about this campaign and what you can do to help, you can do so in John’s article ‘Ecuador Endangered’.

Apart from the individuals mentioned above, signatories and endorsing organizations are engaged in an incredibly diverse range of activities to end violence in one context or another. These include individuals and organizations working in many countries to end violence against women (including discriminatory practices against widows), to rehabilitate child soldiers and end sexual violence in the Congo, activists engaged in nonviolent defense or liberation struggles – see Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy – in several countries and occupied territories, as well as campaigns on a vast range of environmental, climate and indigenous rights issues, campaigns to promote religious and racial harmony as well as campaigns for nuclear disarmament and to end war. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy.

But it also includes many individuals tackling violence at its source – seeWhy Violence?’ and Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice – by focusing on their own healing – see ‘Putting Feelings First’ – and/or working on how they parent their children for a nonviolent world. See ‘My Promise to Children’.

Given the perilous state of the global environment and climate, still others are focusing their efforts on reducing their consumption and increasing their self-reliance in accordance with the fifteen-year strategy outlined in The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth.

If you would like to be part of the worldwide movement to end violence that has drawn the six people and several organizations mentioned above together, along with many others in 103 countries around the world, you are welcome to sign the online pledge of The Peoples Charter to Create a Nonviolent World.

Reverend King posed the fundamental choice of our time: nonviolence or nonexistence. What is your choice?

Posted in USAComments Off on Nonviolence or Nonexistence? The Legacy of Martin Luther King Jr.

It’s Not Russia, America’s Unspoken Program of “Political Assassinations”.


World media has for weeks uncritically accepted British government claims, backed by the U.S., that the Russian government attempted to assassinate  the double agent Sergei Skripal and his daughter, Yulia, with a weapons grade” nerve agent. Even a minute amount of the agent  Novichok should kill almost immediately.

But the recovery of Skirpal’s daughter and a series of other inconsistencies and changes of story render the official account more than suspect, particularly as that account fits with the barrage of anti-Russian propaganda emanating from the British and U.S. governments and military-intelligence systems to justify further aggressive moves against Russia. The Russian government denies any involvement in the Skirpal affair.

Unmentioned in mass media discussions of the Skirpal affair has been the previous public support for the assassination of Edward Snowden in Russia  by officials of the U.S. government and Congress members, who claim to be horrified by the dubious claim that the Russian government assassinated in Britain a  double agent who betrayed other Russian agents.

Far more serious than the threats against Snowden are the daily assassinations carried out by the U.S. government.  By definition, assassination is politically motivated murder, the intentional killing of one or more individuals without any impartial judicial process which includes the right of defense.

The assassins employed by the U.S.government are housed in a government building in the U.S. and supplied with weekly ‘kill lists’.  The assassins  weapons of choice are ‘drones’, pilot less military aircraft, which they control remotely from their computers to fly over other countries and exterminate their victims.  Under Obama there were 563 ‘strikes’  in Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan and other countries- aka 563 assassinations – carried out from lists supplied by him and his circle of advisors.

Hundreds of individuals placed on these lists, which continue to be created to this day, alongside much larger numbers of individual bystanders caught by the firing from the drones, have been assassinated.

The targeted individuals are referred to as ‘terrorists’, though many of them are simply members of resistance groups or verbal opponents of U.S. military occupations of their countries.  No court has found them guilty of any crime.   They are simply placed on the ‘kill lists’ by the U.S. president or other high officials.

It should be emphasized that there is nothing secret about the U.S. governments assassination program. Nor is there anything secret about the enthusiasm for assassinating Edward Snowden expressed by CIA and other U.S. government officials and by some members of the U.S. Congress.

These matters are spoken of openly and with approval by members of the U.S. Congress and by military and intelligence officials.   It is more than ironic that these same officials feign outrage that Russia, which denies any involvement, allegedly assassinated one person.

Posted in USA, RussiaComments Off on It’s Not Russia, America’s Unspoken Program of “Political Assassinations”.

Neoconservative Ideology in the Trump White House. U.S. Military Power, Torture and the Defense of the Nazi regime

Neoconservative Ideology in the Trump White House. U.S. Military Power, Torture and the Defense of Israel

One of the most influential neoconservatives in Washington is Robert Kagan, the husband of Victoria Nuland who was the Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs under the Obama administration (and one of the architects of the Ukraine’s civil war) describes himself as a “liberal interventionist” who has been a foreign policy adviser to both U.S. Republican presidential candidates to the Democratic administrations. Kagan is also one of the co-founders of the neoconservative think tank, Project for the New American Century, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) who pushed for the war on Iraq described the International order as the “domination of one vision over others” meaning that America must maintain and defend its imperial ideals:

International order is not an evolution; it is an imposition. It is the domination of one vision over others- in this case, the domination of liberal principles of economics, domestic politics, and international relations over other, nonliberal principles. It will last only as long as those who imposed it retain the capacity to defend it

Between the 1950′s and the 1960′s, a political movement known as Neo-conservatism was born under the liberal hawks of the Democratic Party in the United States. The liberal hawks or the neoconservatives (also known as the neocons) essentially disagreed with the Democratic Party’s stance against the Vietnam War and their domestic policies such as U.S. President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society by eliminating poverty and racial injustice (An important note: LBJ was a racist and was forced to adopt his Great Society programs due to Martin Luther King Jr. and public pressures from the Civil Rights movement). During the same time period between the 1950s and the early 1960s, the neoconservatives supported Martin Luther King Jr. and the civil rights movement.

Then came the Vietnam war where the liberal hawks called for military action to prevent the Communists from taking power in Vietnam. The neocons were also proponents of the Cold War and supporters of Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. The American New Left (many endorsed Marxist-Leninist policies) including the civil rights movement, feminists and the Black Power movement were opposed to any war and Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians and of course they were labeled as anti-Semites by the neocons (many were and still are Jewish-Americans). The neocons made their way to the Reagan administration with Eliot Abrams and company with wars in Central America including Nicaragua and El Salvador.

The neocons were also in both the George H.W. Bush and the George W. Bush administrations with Dick Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle and others with the war on Iraq. However, to be clear, the neocons were not only influential in the Republican Party, they were and still are influential with the Democratic Party as well. In an article written by the late Robert Parry on March 15, 2017 titled ‘The Kagans are Back; Wars to Follow’ on how the neocons made its way to the Obama Administration with his Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs, Victoria Nuland. Parry wrote:

The Kagan family, America’s neoconservative aristocracy, has reemerged having recovered from the letdown over not gaining its expected influence from the election of Hillary Clinton and from its loss of official power at the start of the Trump presidency. Back pontificating on prominent op-ed pages, the Family Kagan now is pushing for an expanded U.S. military invasion of Syria and baiting Republicans for not joining more enthusiastically in the anti-Russian witch hunt over Moscow’s alleged help in electing Donald Trump. 

In a Washington Post op-ed on March 7, Robert Kagan, a co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a key architect of the Iraq War, jabbed at Republicans for serving as “Russia’s accomplices after the fact” by not investigating more aggressively. Then, Frederick Kagan, director of the Critical Threats Project at the neocon American Enterprise Institute, and his wife, Kimberly Kagan, president of her own think tank, Institute for the Study of War, touted the idea of a bigger U.S. invasion of Syria in a Wall Street Journal op-ed on March 15. 

Yet, as much standing as the Kagans retain in Official Washington’s world of think tanks and op-ed placements, they remain mostly outside the new Trump-era power centers looking in, although they seem to have detected a door being forced open. Still, a year ago, their prospects looked much brighter. They could pick from a large field of neocon-oriented Republican presidential contenders or – like Robert Kagan – they could support the establishment Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose “liberal interventionism” matched closely with neoconservatism, differing only slightly in the rationalizations used for justifying wars and more wars. 

There was also hope that a President Hillary Clinton would recognize how sympatico the liberal hawks and the neocons were by promoting Robert Kagan’s neocon wife, Victoria Nuland, from Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs to Secretary of State. Then, there would have been a powerful momentum for both increasing the U.S. military intervention in Syria and escalating the New Cold War with Russia, putting “regime change” back on the agenda for those two countries. So, early last year, the possibilities seemed endless for the Family Kagan to flex their muscles and make lots of money

Now, in 2018, the Trump White House is increasingly becoming a neocon enclave of psychos and lunatics who want a war on Iran and other enemies that are on the U.S. hit list. Has Trump proven himself to be outside the Democratic and Republican establishment? Not really. In fact, Trump has proven to be a neocon who believes that the U.S. military has to be strong to face major challenges (Iran, Russia and China). Trump even suggested that the U.S. military should add a “Space Force” in recent weeks to dominate space. Last year Trump tweeted “Our military is building and is rapidly becoming stronger than ever before. Frankly, we have no choice!.”

Trump is basically Bush or Obama 2.0. When candidate Trump spoke about U.S. foreign policy and its interventions worldwide in 2016, he seemed like a peace candidate just like almost every Presidential candidate before him until they sit in that special chair in the White House. When President-elect Donald Trump held a “Thank You” tour in Cincinnati after his victory over Hillary Clinton he said that “We will pursue a new foreign policy that finally learns from the mistakes of the past.” Well he extended the occupation of Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria and has not closed any U.S. military bases stationed in more than 130 countries (for the record, Trump never promised to close down any US military base). “We will stop looking to topple regimes and overthrow governments. …In our dealings with other countries we will seek shared interests wherever possible…” And if not possible, regime change is back on the table. It all turned out to be a lie. Trump has been the total opposite of what he promised his supporters, in fact, Trump has become a neoconservative warmonger when it comes to America’s foreign policy objectives. So what are the characteristics of being a neoconservative? Gerard Baker best described what is the ideology behind neoconservatism in a column he wrote for The Times, a daily national newspaper based in the UK in 2007:

It took, improbably, the arrival of George Bush in the White House and September 11, 2001, to catapult [neoconservatism] into the public consciousness. When Mr Bush cited its most simplified tenet—that the US should seek to promote liberal democracy around the world—as a key case for invading Iraq, neoconservatism was suddenly everywhere. It was, to its many critics, a unified ideology that justified military adventurism, sanctioned torture and promoted aggressive Zionism

So let’s take a look at what Baker described as neo-conservatism in regards to President Trump’s ideology when it comes to the U.S. war machine, torture and the defense of Israel. Trump is replacing members of his administration with war hawks and neoconservatives with the new Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the former CIA Director who once said that “Prime Minister Netanyahu is a true partner of the American people.” Pompeo gave a speech at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in 2017 and said that “It is time to call out WikiLeaks for what it really is – a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia.” You can guess where all this is leading to. Pompeo will be replaced with Gina Haspel, A CIA operative who oversaw torture and got rid of the evidence of any wrong doing. If approved by congress, both Pompeo and Haspel will be placed in positions of power and practically rubbing elbows with John Bolton was also just appointed to be Trump’s National Security Advisor. Bolton is another neoconservative psychopath who advocates for war on every nation on earth. Bolton is a pro-Israel supporter and a former U.S. ambassador to the U.N. under the war criminal and former U.S. president, George W. Bush Jr. So what is the endgame? A long war in the Middle East and beyond is on the agenda.

Trump’s Military Adventures Around the World

First and foremost, Trump wants America to be an unchallenged superpower that can use its military power anywhere and at anytime especially in their backyard, for example when he made a comment back on August 2017 discussing a possible military option for Venezuela and said:

“They have many options for Venezuela — and, by the way, I’m not going to rule out a military option,..We have many options for Venezuela, this is our neighbor, this is know.. we’re all over the world, and we have troops all over the world in places that are very, very far away. Venezuela is not very far away, and the people are suffering, and they’re dying. We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option, if necessary”

For Trump, it is a strong and powerful America that can achieve peace through its leadership backed with a powerful military force, not international treaties. Sovereign nations on Washington’s hit list includes Iran, China and Russia, Bolivia, Nicaragua, Cuba, Venezuela, Yemen, Lebanon, Syria and the Palestinians (with more countries to follow, especially those who do not directly obey the American Empire). Any sovereign state that wants an independent domestic and foreign policy would be confronted by the U.S. military that would be prepared to intervene on any given notice by Washington in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, in Central and Southeast Asia and beyond to spread “American Democracy.” The defense budget under Trump has increased according to a recent Al Jazeerareport ‘Trump to increase military budget above China, Russia’:

It is the biggest budget the Pentagon has ever seen: $700bn. That’s far more in military spending than the US’ two nearest competitors, China and Russia, and will mean US army can foot the bill for thousands more troops, more training, more ships and a lot else.  And next year it would rise to $716bn. Together, the two-year deal provides what US Defense Secretary James Mattis says is needed to pull the military out of a slump in combat readiness at a time of renewed focus on the stalemated conflict in Afghanistan and the threat of war on the Korean Peninsula.

The budget bill that President Donald Trump signed Friday includes huge spending increases for the military: The Pentagon will get $94bn more this budget year than last – a 15.5 percent jump. It’s the biggest year-over-year windfall since the budget soared by 26.6 percent, from $345bn in 2002 to $437bn the year after, when the United States invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, and was expanding national defence after the attacks September 11, 2001

More U.S. taxpayer money will be going to the Military-Industrial Complex to prepare for more unending and may I add, unwinnable future wars.

John Bolton, a Neoconservative Lunatic

John Bolton, a former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations under the George W. Bush Administration and another member of the neoconservative think tank, The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and a cheerleader for the invasion of Iraq, and has been advocating for the bombing of North Korea and Iran for quite some time. Back in 2002, John Bolton was serving under U.S. President George W. Bush as undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security and said “We are confident that Saddam Hussein has hidden weapons of mass destruction and production facilities in Iraq.” Despite the WMD lies that the Bush Administration created that led to the invasion and to the destruction of Iraq, Bolton has no regrets. In 2015, The Washington Examiner published an article on Bolton’s hand in the Iraq Quagmire titled ‘John Bolton: No regrets about toppling Saddam.’ Bolton said the following:

“I still think the decision to overthrow Saddam was correct. I think decisions made after that decision were wrong, although I think the worst decision made after that was the 2011 decision to withdraw U.S. and coalition forces,” Bolton said. “The people who say, oh things would have been much better if you didn’t overthrow Saddam miss the point that today’s Middle East does not flow totally and unchangeably from the decision to overthrow Saddam alone” 

In 2016, during a debate with Jeb Bush, Candidate Trump said “We should have never been in Iraq, we have destabilized the Middle East. They lied. They said there were weapons of mass destruction — there were none. And they knew there were none.” Yet, Trump hires John Bolton. The hypocrisy is evident. What is troubling about Bolton is that he is willing to call for military action anywhere in the world. Here is what Bolton said about Cuba back in 2002 in a report by Judith Miller (The New York Times reporter who claimed that Iraq had Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMDs) nonsense) titled ‘Washington Accuses Cuba Of Germ-Warfare Research’:

In a speech yesterday at the conservative Heritage Foundation in Washington, John R. Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control, publicly alluded to conclusions that American intelligence agencies have reached in recent months after protracted internal debate.

”The United States believes that Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological warfare research and development effort,” Mr. Bolton said, taking aim at the Communist government of Fidel Castro. Cuba, he added, has also ”provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue states.”

While the Clinton administration expressed concern in 1998 about Cuba’s potential to develop and produce biological agents, this is the first time that an American official has accused Cuba of developing germs for warfare

What is the most disturbing aspect to John Bolton’s ideology is when it comes to Israel’s defense concerning Iran. In 2009 Bolton gave a speech at the University of Chicago and said that “Unless Israel is prepared to use nuclear weapons against Iran’s program, Iran will have nuclear weapons in the very near future.” One thing Bolton’s statement confirmed in regards to Israel’s use of nuclear weapons against Iran’s nuclear program is that a public figure who has been around Washington for some time, admitted that Israel has nuclear weapons. The danger Bolton poses to America’s adversaries throughout the world is astounding.

Bolton as Trump’s National Security advisor clearly paints a path to numerous wars, perhaps even a nuclear war with Iran, Russia and China. So will other Neocon lunatics be considered for positions within the Trump White House including Paul Wolfowitz, Eliot Abrams, David Frum or even Democrats who are neoconservatives who were Hillary Clinton supporters such as R. James Woolsey, a former Director of the CIA from 1993 to 1995 under the Clinton administration and Chair of the Board at Foundation for the Defense of Democracies (FDD) who basically told The Jerusalem Post in November 2017 that the U.S. should destroy the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps infrastructure and Iran’s nuclear facilities. Woolsey said that “the next time the IRGC looks cross-eyed at us… we should turn loose six to 12 MOAB [GBU-43/B Massive Ordnance Air Blast] bombs on their facilities” and “given what a source of terrorism the IRGC is… instead of talking and proportionality – the hell with proportionality. We should destroy virtually everything we can that has to do with the IRGC.” Sounds like Trump’s kind of guy.

So what does Trump have in common with the neoconservatives whether they are Democrats or Republicans? The American Conservative published an article by Jack Hunter in 2011 titled ‘What’s a Neoconservative?’ which explains the mindset of the neocons and what they believe in:

The “neocons” believe American greatness is measured by our willingness to be a great power—through vast and virtually unlimited global military involvement. Other nations’ problems invariably become our own because history and fate have designated America the world’s top authority. Critics say the US cannot afford to be the world’s policeman. Neoconservatives not only say that we can but we must—and that we will cease to be America if we don’t. Writes Boston Globe neoconservative columnist Jeff Jacoby: “Our world needs a policeman. And whether most Americans like it or not, only their indispensable nation is fit for the job.” Neocon intellectual Max Boot says explicitly that the US should be the world’s policeman because we are the best policeman.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) heartily champions the neoconservative view. While virtually every other recognizably Tea Party congressman or senator opposes the Libyan intervention, Rubio believes the world’s top cop should be flashing its Sherriff’s badge more forcefully in Libya—and everywhere else. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat explains:

“Rubio is the great neoconservative hope, the champion of a foreign policy that boldly goes abroad in search of monsters to destroy… His maiden Senate speech was a paean to national greatness, whose peroration invoked John F. Kennedy and insisted that America remain the ‘watchman on the wall of world freedom”

In this year’s State of the Union address, Trump called for the funding of the U.S. military to counter rogue regimes, terrorists and even mentioned China and Russia who challenge Washington’s interests:

As we rebuild America’s strength and confidence at home, we are also restoring our strength and standing abroad. Around the world, we face rogue regimes, terrorist groups, and rivals like China and Russia that challenge our interests, our economy, and our values. In confronting these dangers, we know that weakness is the surest path to conflict, and unmatched power is the surest means of our defense. For this reason, I am asking the Congress to end the dangerous defense sequester and fully fund our great military.

As part of our defense, we must modernize and rebuild our nuclear arsenal, hopefully never having to use it, but making it so strong and powerful that it will deter any acts of aggression. Perhaps someday in the future there will be a magical moment when the countries of the world will get together to eliminate their nuclear weapons. Unfortunately, we are not there yet

I agree with Trump that the world is not ready to relinquish its nuclear weapons, especially when his administration is calling for the modernization and the rebuilding of the U.S. nuclear weapons arsenal.

Trump the Torturer

“Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys—”Torture doesn’t work!”—believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it’s not actually torture. Let’s assume it is. But they asked me the question: What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding”

U.S. Presidential Candidate Donald Trump, February 17th, 2016

Gina Haspel was a former intelligence officer and a Deputy Director of the CIA is now a nominee to head the controversial agency under Trump. Trump will also reinstate torture which he made clear with his nomination of Gina Haspel. Haspel oversaw the use of torture (or Enhanced Interrogation Techniques’ which is an Orwellian term for torture) and then buried the evidence.

Torture is illegal under international law. During the Bush administration, Haspel was chief of a black site or a CIA torture chamber which was located in Thailand. Alleged members of Al Qaeda who were detained in the black site including Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri and Abu Zubaydah where tortured by waterboarding. Fast forward to June 7, 2017, the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) called on the Public Prosecutor General of Germany to issue an arrest warrant against Gina Haspel who should be considered a war criminal. Trump’s choice for the directorship of the CIA only means that torture will be secretly reinstated.

Under Haspel’s watch, it would be difficult to obtain any sort of evidence of torture. What is also possible is the return of Forced Renditions or what is called “U.S. government-sponsored abduction” which basically means kidnapping someone who is suspected of being a terrorist whether they are in the street or in their home by a group of masked men and then thrown into a van and then is transferred from one country to another to be tortured under U.S. supervision. With the nomination of Gina Haspel, there seems to be a renewed interest in torture, which is another element of neoconservative ideology.

Trump and Israel, A Match Made in Hell

The highly controversial decision that Trump has promised to Israel is to move the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem from Tel-Aviv and the same time, cutting aid to the Palestinian Authority shows how far Trump is willing to go to appease Israel. Trump recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital early in his administration with his announcement that the U.S. embassy was going to move to Jerusalem is a clean break from U.S. policy. Jerusalem has been the main subject of any final-status negotiation that took place between the Israelis and Palestinians who both claim that Jerusalem is their capital. Trump (who is clearly ignorant about the Middle East in general) had mentioned that he believed that moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem would allow the peace process to move forward, since the Jerusalem issue would be taken off the table since it was always a subject of disagreement between the Israelis and Palestinians. Trump’s announcement about the U.S. embassy move going forward was condemned by the international community, especially in the Middle East. In a U.N. General Assembly vote, 128 countries voted against the recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital for the Jews.

In terms of Israel’s expansions in regards to illegal settlements on Palestinian land under Trump, Israel has been emboldened to build even more settlements according to a March 22nd, Bloomberg News article titled ‘Israeli Settlements’:

As the U.S., Israel’s most important ally, has softened its policy toward settlements under President Donald Trump, the country has taken bold steps to strengthen its claims to the West Bank. When Israel announced plans in early 2017 to erect the first new settlement in a quarter-century, the Trump administration affirmed that it does not view existing settlements as an obstacle to peace, a reversal of decades-old U.S. policy. It added that fresh construction “may not be helpful,” but that was a mild rebuke compared with those of previous administrations. Israel’s parliament subsequently passed a law that would extend government authorization to unofficial settlements built on land privately owned by Palestinians

Trump has been a staunch supporter of Israel (just like most of his predecessors) the second he hit the campaign trail. When he was elected, he appointed Nikki Haley who attended the last American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) event earlier this month and said “When I come to AIPAC, I am with friends. And at the UN, we don’t usually have very many friends.” Well, she was right about that, especially when Israel and the U.S. has traditional ignored numerous U.N. resolutions that recognize the right of Palestinian self-determination or for Israel to cease its repressive measures. Several resolutions also called for U.N. observers to investigate Israel’s actions in the occupied Palestinian territories or to impose sanctions against Israel if it did not follow the U.N. councils resolutions. The U.S. has vetoed numerous resolutions put forth by the U.N. Security Council that have been critical of Israel for decades. Trump has surrounded himself with people who are extremely pro-Israel including his ambassador to Israel, David M. Friedman who told the Israeli newspaper, Haaretz in 2016 that Trump would support Israel annexing parts of the West Bank and that “Israel has to continue to build in the settlements because there is no reason not to do so.” What makes matters worse is that Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushnerwas a co-director of the Charles and Seryl Kushner Foundation from 2006 to 2015 that funded an Israeli settlement that was considered to be illegal under international law.

If that is not what Gerard Baker described as one of the characteristics of neoconservative ideology in regards to “aggressive Zionism”, then I don’t know what is. Trump is clearly a pro-Israel Zionist like many in Washington whether they are Democrats or Republicans (close to forty people in U.S. congress has dual US-Israeli citizenships). Former U.S. Vice-President to Barack Obama, Joseph Biden once said “I am a Zionist. You don’t have to a Jew to be a Zionist”and he is absolutely correct. Trump is preparing a war cabinet for a major Middle East conflict that can spiral out of control. Trump and Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu are on the same page when it comes to Israel’s neighbors in the Middle East and with his appointment of John Bolton, a war against Syria, Hezbollah, Lebanon and Iran is on the table.

So the Question Remains, Is Trump a Neoconservative?

Trump’s words, actions and his recent appointments of John Bolton, Mike Pompeo and Gina Haspel points towards a cycle of endless wars especially in the Middle East. With Iran in the cross-hairs, World War III will be in the foreseeable future but not before the U.S. Presidential elections in 2020. It will most likely start in Trump’s second term if he is re-elected or even if a Democrat who will most likely be in the pockets of the Israeli lobby becomes the next U.S. President.

However, from now until 2020, anything can happen under Trump concerning the wild card, Israel. Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu want to cancel Iran’s nuclear deal. With Israel itching to attack Iran with its nuclear weapons arsenal and now with John Bolton as Trump’s National Security advisor who advocates for the bombing of Iran and North Korea, it can be possibility. But it is up to Iran, Russia and China to counter any U.S., Israeli and Saudi led aggression by showing their unity and their military strength which can deter a major war.

Peace seems impossible with the Trump first giving the military full authority to conduct war and covert operations around the world then filling the Whitehouse with extreme war hawks, torturers and neocon psychos. Trump acts and talks like a neocon, perhaps he is a neocon, but then again, maybe it’s just plain old politics in Washington.

Posted in USA, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Neoconservative Ideology in the Trump White House. U.S. Military Power, Torture and the Defense of the Nazi regime

NATO Aggression Continues: Appeal for Peace


We, the participants of the Conference titled “NATO Aggression on Serbia (the FRY), 19 Years On – Aggression Continues“, held on March 21, 2018, in the Serbian Army Home, in Belgrade, co-organized by the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals, the Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia, and Serbian Hosts Association,

Deeply worried by the trend of deepening tensions and distrust in the global world relations,

Considering spreading of foreign military bases, enormous growth of military spending, and disregards for arms control agreements,

Noting the lack of meaningful dialogue among the global factors, in one hand, and the practice of  military expansion and interventionism, threats of force including threats of use of nuclear weapons, in the other hand,

Particularly alarmed by the amassing of warfare equipment and troupes in Europe, and by the militarization of political decision-making, economic development, educational system, and the mass media,

Condemning the practice of use of force by circumventing the UN Security Council and of violating the UN Charter, the OSCE’s Helsinki Final Act, the Paris Charter, and other fundamental principles of international relations,

Deeply concerned by the growing risks of an accidental outbreak of a global conflict,

Opposing the policy of double standards towards separatism and terrorism which threatens by global destabilization and conflicts,

We submit this


To all peace movements, forces and individuals, who are genuinely committed to peace, stability and development, to step up their efforts aimed at:

Condemning the policy of force, domination, interventionism, double standards, and all other forms of violating the fundamental principles of international relations,

Addressing all international crises and problems by peaceful political means, in observance of the basic principles of the international law and the legitimate interests of the involved parties,

Strengthening of the political dialogue and partnership relations based on sovereign equality, and at halting the trend of deepening mistrust in relations between global actors in international relations,

Observing international legal order and strengthening the role and authority of the UN and especially of the irreplaceable role of the Security Council in maintaining peace and security,

Renouncing the use of nuclear weapons, and at starting negotiations on nuclear disarmament under the auspicesof the UN,

Efficient combatting and eradicating the root causes of international terrorism and mass migrations, under the auspices of the UN,

To revert all matters of war and peace to the democratic institutions, so to prevent the domination of the informal lobby groups of military industrial and financial sectors on the process of decision making.

Belgrade, March 21, 2018

On behalf of participants of the Conference “NATO Aggression 19 Years On – Aggression Continues“

Živadin Jovanović, Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals

Milomir Miladinović, Club of Generals and Admirals of Serbia

Nićifor Aničić, Serbian Hosts Association


Delivered to:

  • Office of the Republic of Serbia, Mr. Aleksandar Vučić
  • Office of the Prime Minister of Serbia, Ms. Ana Brnabić
  • Office of President of the National Assembly, Ms. Maja Gojković
  • Office of Minister of Defense, Mr. Aleksandar Vulin
  • Office of Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Ivica Dačić
  • Office of Minister of Education, Science and Technological Development, Mr. Mladen Šarčević
  • Office of the President of the World Peace Council Mrs. Socorro Gomes, Brazil
  • Office of the Secretariat of the World Peace Council, Athens, Greece

Posted in NATOComments Off on NATO Aggression Continues: Appeal for Peace

An “April Fool” in Bagdhad? John McCain

Image result for john mccain cartoons

From our archives. This article was first published by Global Research in April 2007

[Eleven years ago] On April Fool’s Day, 1st April, [2007] Senator John McCain went for a stroll in Baghdad’s central, sprawling Shorja Market. There were “encouraging signs”, he said “progress” was “evident”.

The man whose 2004 book is entitled: “Why Courage Matters – The Way to a Braver Life”, wore body armour and was reported as accompanied by one hundred soldiers, three Blackhawk helicopters and two Apaches. The Iraq debate in Congress “has an Alice in Wonderland quality about it”, he comments on his website ( ). So did his market visit, where the “warm” people even refused money for his “souvenirs”. Probably because a very proud people would not take an invasion supporter’s cash if it was the last on the planet.

“Never have I been able to go out into the city as I did today”, said McCain. “Never (before) have I been able to drive from the airport.” Wonder what air cover and armoured battalions accompanied that twenty minute jolly. Commentator Norman Soloman compared the comments to Robert McNamara in Viet Nam in 1962: “Nothing but progress and hopeful indications of further progress in the future …”

“On March 28th, 2007, McCain claimed that ‘General Petraeus goes out in Baghdad almost daily in an unarmed humvee.’” On March 29th., CNN’s John Roberts stated that he “…checked with General Petraeus’s people overnight and they said he never goes out in anything but an up-armoured humvee.”

Further, Retired General Barry McCaffrey, on the same day, issued a report saying “… no Iraqi government official, coalition soldier, diplomat, reporter could walk the streets without heavily armed protection.” (Wikipedia.)

McCain later said he had “misspoken” re the peace and tranquility of downtown Baghdad. There are other more apt words. In February, one hundred and thirty seven people were killed in bombings at Shorja market, which has been targeted on a number of occasions and where, prior to the invasion, one wandered amongst the wares without a thought of danger.

Americans were not getting the “full picture” of progress, McCain had said of his tooled up roam. In fact more than six hundred Iraqis had been killed since just 25th March. And on the day of McCain’s souvenir stroll, Joost Hiltermann of the Brussels based International Crisis Group doubted there would be “a serious drop in casualties”, without a more imaginative approach, “surge” or not. In all, a minimum of two thousand and seventy eight Iraqis were killed in March, up fifteen percent on February, according to figures obtained by AFP. On 22nd March, UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon ducked, flinched and fled as two powerful explosions hit the heavily fortified Green Zone, he too had been telling his audience of hopeful signs and progress.

The Senator, a 2008 Presidential hopeful, seemingly has a vested interest in painting a rosy picture of the bloody hell to which the US led invasion has reduced Iraq. His unwavering support for the Iraq war might seem to show a lack of judgment, similar to the present White House incumbent, of whom the majority of Americans – and a large part of the world – have had enough. His 2002 book, written with Harlan Ullman is entitled: “Unfinished Business: Afghanistan, Middle East and Beyond – Defusing Dangers that threaten American Security”. The unmitigated disaster of Afghanistan and Iraq have done anything but “defuse dangers”; they are insane undertakings of near unprecedented wickedness and slaughter that has brought near universal loathing on the United States and Britain. Further, this week, the respected think tank The Oxford Research Group published “Beyond Terror: The Truth About the Real Threats to Our World”. This major academic study, endorsed by Archbishop Desmond Tutu, warns that the “war on terror” is increasing the likelihood of more attacks of the magnitude of September 11th.

The Report, which calls for the rapid withdrawal of troops from Iraq, also advocates a system of “sustainable security” where governments co-operate to tackle the root causes of division, rather than resort to brute force. An outbreak of sanity far from “defusion” at gun, tank and bomb point.

McCain, however, is seemingly determined to fight on in Iraq to the last drop of others’ blood and apparently has interests in the Middle East further to the West. On December 5th 2006, he was awarded the Henry Jackson Distinguished Service Award, the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA.) With the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) the most strongly supportive of the war on Iraq. JINSA: “The most influential group on the issue of US-Israeli military relations” exists: “To inform the (US) defence and foreign affairs community about the important role Israel can and does play in bolstering democratic interests in the Mediterranean and the Middle East.” (That old aspiration: “From the Nile to the Euphrates” comes to mind.)

Advisory Members have included a “who’s who” of invasion designer neo-cons, such as Richard Perle, Dick Cheney, John Bolton, Douglas Feith and Michael Ledeen. Supporters include another “whose who”, the defence industry from Lockheed Martin to General Dynamics and Friends of the Israeli Defence Force are also included in an enlightening list of funders.(see: ) “United States and Israeli interests are largely one and the same”, concludes rightweb.

The day John McCain went souvenir hunting and “misspoke” regarding Baghdad’s tranquility, a glimpse of reality that day in Baghdad follows: Four mortar shells hit Dora district, four injured; a mortar shell in Yarmouk, three injured; sixteen unidentified bodies were found between Amil, Dora, Yarmouk, Mansour, Huraih and Bab al-Muadam; six US solders killed by roadside bombs and another wounded two civilians in eastern Baghdad. Gunmen wounded two children in a playing field in Zafaraniya. The list for the rest of the country, north, south, east, west is another day of unspeakable carnage running to four tightly packed pages. (courtesy Dancewater, Iraq Today: )

“Benefits of success will justify the costs and risks”, McCain told The New School, Madison Square Garden in May 2006 to jeers, boos and insults after twelve hundred graduates had signed a petition objecting to his being invited to give the graduation address. “Costs and risks?” Not to the Senator, surrounded by near gladiatorial security. A Senator who, in the 2000 Presidential primaries, said of the Vietnamese – in another invasion America had no right to undertake: “I hate gooks, I will hate them as long as I live … this is the kindest description I can give to them.” I wonder what he calls the Iraqis? And I wonder – who was the April Fool?

(Footnote: To be fair, one must respect the fact that Senator McCain spent five and a half years in a North Vietnamese prison camp. This would naturally affect his views, especially of Vietnam. You’d think McCain’s experience would have led him to speak out for those who spend five years in Guantánamo as well as the thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan at the hands of his countrymen. Please see: )

Posted in USAComments Off on An “April Fool” in Bagdhad? John McCain

Why the Nuclear War Is No Longer Unthinkable?


Just a few weeks before his reelection, President Vladimir Putindelivered a speech to the members of the Federal Assembly, setting an agenda for the country’s military and economic development. Internationally, this annual event has gained attention as Russia, apart from other things, announced the enhancement of its nuclear delivery systems. In total, the development of six new delivery systems was announced, with videos demonstrating their strike capabilities. The Kremlin’s show of force was vividly aimed at the international audience, precisely, the powers of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

The response to Putin’s address was immediate.

“We don’t regard it as the behavior of a responsible international player,” commented the U.S. State Department spokesperson, Heather Nauert.

With that note, she was referring to the video animation showcasing Russia’s new intercontinental ballistic missile system called Sarmat. President Putin announced this missile as “a very powerful mighty weapon.” A missile with almost indefinite endurance means “nothing, not even perspective” anti-ballistic missile systems “could be an obstacle for it.” Consequently, this will, according to Putin, restore the balance of power between Washington and Moscow. “Nobody wanted to listen to us” on the matter, he stressed. “Well, listen to us now.”

The theme of Russia being an irresponsible international player was reiterated across the conventional corporate media apparatuses. Washington is, again, talking about the Cold War.

Accordingly, Putin’s address must be taken as a challenge to the U.S, requiring it to make a strong response. “Oddly,” therefore, “Mr. Trump has said almost nothing about the new era of competition with Mr. Putin or Russia,” reported the New York Times on March 1. The presentation of Sarmat cruise missiles “sharply escalated the military invective in the tense relationship between” the two nuclear powers. Reporting on the same day, the liberal American news outlet Vox stated that if Russia has the weapons it demonstrated, then it “purposefully raised the stakes in the decades-long nuclear standoff.” The Washington Post, in the meantime, went to amplify the rhetoric of American’s most aggressive foreign policy strategists: “U.S. defense officials have consistently cited Russia as the most significant strategic threat to the United States, and the primary reason to build up its defense budget.”

Indeed, the enhancement of Russia’s missile capabilities should be taken as a worrying development.

If one looks at this development objectively, however, and, is concerned about the “strategic” security of people, including those living in the U.S, then they would inevitably spot the United States to be the biggest threat to international security, with its “defense budget” feeding the new power rivalry.

The Balance of Power

Conspicuously, warmongering Western media outlets have failed to report the most important point of Putin’s remarks about his government’s defense policy.

“Our military doctrine,” he stated, “says Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons solely in response to a nuclear attack, or an attack with other weapons of mass destruction against the country or its allies, or an act of aggression against us with the use of conventional weapons that threaten the very existence of the state.”

The reason for the enhancement of the nuclear delivery systems was stated, too. In fact, the statement replicated what the President has already said on numerous occasions. The audience in America, for example, had had an opportunity to learn about Russia’s geopolitical agenda in 2017 from a series of documentary films called The Putin Interviews. They were produced by an American filmmaker, Oliver Stone.

There, Putin criticized Washington for unilaterally withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, a framework established to maintain a balance of power between Washington and Moscow during the Cold War. To put it in Putin’s words, the treaty “was the cornerstone of the system of the international security,” as it limited the number of locations where the two powers could place their anti-ballistic missile systems, installed for defending one side from an incoming nuclear missile attack from the other. Ignoring the fact that both powers have acquired enough nuclear arms to annihilate both each other and the rest of mankind, the treaty provided a framework under which the balance of power between the two sides was measurable. The threat of nuclear war was consequently reduced.

In an environment where the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty is no longer in place, Putin stated that “to preserve the crucial element of international security and stability, mainly the strategic balance of power, we would be obliged to develop our offensive capabilities.” This implies the development of the “missiles capable of surmounting any anti-ballistic missile system.”

The “crucial element of international security and stability” has been jeopardized by NATO, or the expansion of the military alliance and its forces into Eastern Europe. Incorporating countries of the former socialist block, the alliance not only maintains a military presence in states such as Romania, Poland and Latvia but uses the power vacuum created from the absence of a missile treaty to install its anti-ballistic missile systems near the Russian border. President Putin has outlined the danger such a trend poses to Russia quite instructively. Admittedly, the first threat is the placement of “anti-ballistic missiles in the vicinity of our [Russian] border.” The second threat arises from the fact that “the launching pods of these anti-ballistic missiles can be transformed, within a few hours, into offensive missile launching pods.”

For bringing the Putin Interviews to the American audience, Oliver Stone was condemned as an apologist for the Kremlin. On the matter, it is worth quoting an article from the Foreign Policy, a reputable news publication. While dismissing the interviews for telling “little about Putin and even less about Russia,” the piece was alarmed that the series amplifies “the Kremlin line”, which, of course, consists of “conspiracy theories.”

Iranian Threat in Europe

Perhaps, we should ignore Putin’s “conspiracy theories” and use Western sources to test whether his concerns about Washington and NATO are valid. On 12 May 2016 Reuters published an article about America’s first operational ballistic missile defense site in Romania. The U.S. Deputy Defense Secretary Robert Work justified the site for the following reason:

“As long as Iran continues to develop and deploy ballistic missiles, the United States will work with its allies to defend NATO.”

To quote Reuters, the missile defense site in Romania is part of what will be NATO’s “defensive umbrella” on the continent, stretching “from Greenland to the Azores.” Since Iran is presented as the primary threat, the Secretary-General of the alliance, Jens Stoltenberg, pointed that the missile defense system “does not undermine or weaken Russia’s strategic nuclear deterrent.”

Not long before Putin’s March 1 address to the Assembly, the United States 2018 Nuclear Posture Review outlined that Washington “does not wish to regard” Russia as an “adversary.” The reality, however, considerably challenges this claim. First, it is worth examining the country that has been described as a threat to NATO. Indeed, the premise of Iran being a threat stems from an alleged nuclear program that Tehran is undertaking. Yet when the United States opened its ballistic missile defense site in Romania, the threat of Iran was dismissed by the Ploughshares Fund, an influential nuclear security think tank based in Washington.

“The system was designed to protect against an Iranian nuclear missile,” stated its President Joseph Cirincione. “There is not going to be an Iranian nuclear missile for at least 20 years. There is no reason to continue with that [defensive umbrella] program.”

It is also worth asking whether Iran’s nuclear program exists in the first place. In 2007, the U.S. National Intelligence Estimate judged “with high confidence that in fall 2003, Tehran halted its nuclear weapons program.” This, however, did not stop the United States Defense Secretary from persuading Europeans to both take a tougher stance against Tehran and pursue the development of missile defense sites. Released by WikiLeaks, the U.S. diplomatic cable from 2010 reveals the meeting between the Defense Secretary Robert Gates and the Italian Foreign Minister Franco Frattini. Summarizing the meeting, the cable discusses how Secretary Gates was stressing that an “urgent action is required. Without progress in the next few months, we risk nuclear proliferation in the Middle East, war prompted by an Israeli strike or both. SecDef predicted “a different world” in 4-5 years if Iran developed nuclear weapons.”

Supported by Gates and announced by President Obama, the European Phased Adaptive Approach was enabled in 2009, starting the work on a defensive umbrella for Europe against the non-existent Iranian threat. Unsurprisingly, the approach was propelled by business interests of the missile defense producers. In 2017, the German Deutsche Welle reported on a $10.5 billion missile defense deal between the United States and Poland. After Romania, Poland will be the next Eastern European country to open a missile defense site. “Made by US defense contractor Raytheon, the missiles are reportedly designed to detect, track and engage unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), cruise missiles and short-range or tactical ballistic missiles.” Interestingly, the Iranian threat was not mentioned as an influencing factor in the deal.  “Poland is one of a handful of eastern European nations that has increasingly built up their military capacity in the face of potential Russian aggression.”

The Unipolar Moment in Europe

As we broke down the myth about the Iranian threat, it is now worth examining the threat of “potential Russian aggression.” Apart from providing space for the current and future missile defense sites, Eastern Europe has been hosting thousands of American and European troops in the vicinity of the Russian border. At the end of his term in the White House, President Obama enabled what was reported as the “largest NATO buildup in Europe since the Cold War.” Adding to the existing military contingent were “thousands of additional U.S. and NATO troops,” stiffened by “87 new tanks, 144 Bradley fighting vehicles, 60 additional fighting and transport helicopters, and much other advanced” military “equipment.” Poland’s Undersecretary of State for Defense Tomasz Szatkowski made clear that the deployment responds to Russia’s “aggressive actions in our vicinity,” precisely, its actions in “Ukraine and the illegal annexation of Crimea.”

Indeed, evaluating the Kremlin’s actions in Ukraine is impossible if NATO is excluded from the picture. Incorporating into its membership countries of the former Warsaw Pact, including the three Baltic states of the former Soviet Union, NATO has gradually expanded deep into the territories formerly assigned to Moscow’s sphere of influence. This development, however, grotesquely undermines an agreement struck between the Cold War rivals before the Soviet Union ceased to exist. Geopolitically, the final chapter of the Cold War is a unique and extremely revealing period. In negotiations between Washington and Moscow about the future of NATO in post-Warsaw Pact Europe, the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union, Eduard Shevardnadze, was assured with the “iron-clad guarantees” by the U.S. Secretary of State, James Baker, “that NATO’s jurisdiction or forces would not move eastward.” Complicating this assurance was the future of Eastern Germany. The Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev perhaps understood that a fragmented Germany creates a rift between the two sides in cooperation. He, therefore, concluded to the reporters in the summer of 1990:

“Whether we like it or not, the time will come when a united Germany will be in NATO, if that is its choice.”

Gorbachev, nonetheless, took the word of his Western counterparts that the Western military presence will not move further eastward.

The “iron-clad guarantees” was a mere lie. After visiting the NATO headquarters in Belgium in July of the following year, the Russian delegation concluded in the memo that

“NATO should make a clearer, more detailed and definitive statement about the need for a gradual decrease in the military efforts of that organization.”

Indeed, it alliance was “lagging behind the current realities” facing Europe. The Russians gave a prophetic warning to Western partners, stressing that vagueness “could be used by the conservative forces in our country to preserve the military-industrial complex of the USSR.”

The premise that NATO is no longer justified as a military apparatus was unthinkable. As the Soviet Union ceased to exist, there was euphoria in Washington. To understand the mood of those guarding the American power in 1990, it is worth reading the work of a political commentator and proud American imperialist, Charles Krauthammer, who declared “The Unipolar Moment” in an essay for the Foreign Affairs magazine. Indeed, the United States was now the only global empire.

“American preeminence,” Krauthammer points out, “is based on the fact that it is the only country with the military, diplomatic, political and economic assets to be a decisive player in any conflict in whatever part of the world it chooses to involve itself.”

To maintain such a status quo, it is important not to regard “America’s” military “exertions abroad as nothing but a drain on its economy.” The defense spending is indeed vital for the empire. In this context, the relationship within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization can be summarized as following: there is “the United States and behind it the West, because where the United States does not tread, the alliance does not follow.”

The post-Cold War decades have demonstrated that Krauthammer’s extreme far-right judgment represents an overarching establishment view on the strategy of American foreign policy.

Employing its “military, diplomatic, political and economic” supremacy, the United States has aggressively been pursuing its imperial objectives in Eastern Europe, spearheading the expansion of NATO and influencing political processes in countries such as Ukraine and Georgia. The case of Ukraine is particularly revealing, as the events there have been used to justify the militarization of Eastern Europe. Indeed, the West never hid its support for the protests that took place on Kiev’s Maidan Square between November 2013 and February 2014.

“Since Ukraine’s independence in 1991,” emphasized the Assistant Secretary Victoria Nuland, “the United States has supported Ukrainians,” investing “over five billion dollars” to make an impact on their political and economic structure.

The investment was a success; Ukrainian freedom, as that is how it was conventionally described, was achieved in an undemocratic coup against the elected President Viktor Yanukovych. Coming on his place was the establishment of the current President, Petro Poroshenko, a neoliberal pseudo-fascist and a solid choice for Washington. In 2006, Poroshenko was described in the U.S. diplomatic cable as “our Ukrainian insider.” Turned President, the “Ukrainian insider” drifted the country towards Washington’s consensus, implementing the grotesque package of IMF-drafted economic reforms and welcomed hundreds of Western military advisers on Ukrainian soil. The military advisers are there for a reason: they are training the army to wage war against Russian-speaking secessionists in the Eastern Donbass region, in a conflict that has left over 10,000 people dead and over one million displaced. Admittedly, one would be called mad to claim that there would be war in Ukraine before a Western-backed coup.

Russian has been responding to the developments in Ukraine. There is no doubt that it is providing material support to the rebels in Donbass. President Putin, in fact, has inexplicitly pointed to this while assuring reporters that “the self-proclaimed Republics have enough weapons” to fight against the Ukrainian army. Moscow’s response to the conflict in Donbass, however, strikingly differs from its initial response to the coup, symbolized by its reactionary annexation of the Crimean Peninsula. The reason for that was never a guarded secret. While it is true that most people in Crimea supported unification with Russia, the Kremlin’s rapid decision on the matter had perhaps less to do with the fact that the Crimean population consists of a Russian majority, and more to do with the presence of Russia’s historic Black Sea naval base in Sevastopol. Speaking for Oliver Stone’s documentary film Ukraine on Fire, President Putin summarized the importance of a military base in Crimea for the following reason:

“The base, per us, doesn’t mean anything, but there is a nuance I would like to point out. Why do we react so vehemently to NATO’s expansion? We are concerned with the decision-making process. I know how decisions are made. As soon as the country becomes a member of NATO, it can’t resist the pressure of the U.S. And very soon anything at all can appear in such country – missile defense systems, new bases or, if necessary, new missile strike systems. What should we do? We need to take countermeasures.”

Of course, it is possible to make a case that Ukraine is not a member of NATO. In fact, there seems to be no enthusiasm within the alliance about the prospect of Ukraine’s membership. While for the establishment in Kiev, “membership” in NATO is a “strategic goal,” the former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, John E. Herbststated that this goal will not be fulfilled anytime soon. The European NATO members “are anxious about provoking Moscow,” he says.

This does not mean, however, that Ukraine cannot be used as a satellite member of the alliance. Without a formal membership, the “Ukrainian insider[s]” of Washington have permitted the West to maintain a military contingent in the country, for example, allowing its naval ships to enter the Black Sea port in Odessa. If Crimea remained a part of Ukraine, it is somewhat plausible that Kiev would have hosted these NATO ships on the peninsula. Perhaps this answers why the annexation caused such an outcry from the West.

Amidst the developments discussed above, Russia’s defense policy can indeed be viewed as a response to NATO’s provocative expansionism and Washington’s zealous pursuit to maintain its “unipolar moment.” This unilateralist position has empowered “the conservative forces” in Russia, who are preserving and enhancing the country’s defense capabilities.

Tensions between the two sides are consequently rising; nuclear war is unthinkable no more.

An Irresponsible Global Player

Raising the stakes following Putin’s address was, again, the United States. The response to Russia was delivered by the Commander of the United States Strategic Command (STRATCOM), John Hyten (image on the left). Speaking before the House Armed Services Committee, Hyten carried a message that should frighten anyone concerned about the long-term survival of mankind. “We are ready for all the threats that are out there and no one, no one should doubt this,” stated the General. Continuing from that note, Hyten reassured the committee about America’s preparedness to obliterate Russia:

“By the way, our submarines, they [the Russians] do not know where they are, and they have the ability to decimate their country if we go down that path.”

In Russia, Hyten’s remarks were featured in a news segment with the following question: is “American pursuing global suicide?”

Washington’s war rhetoric is not novel. While being the only country to use nuclear weapons in war, the United States has repeatedly been threatening to destroy the societies it perceives as its strategic “adversaries.” In an interview on ABC’s Good Morning America in 2008, then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton emphasized that the U.S. can “totally obliterate” Iran. Clinton’s message was replicated in 2017 by President Trump, though the threats were now directed against a different country. Speaking before the General Assembly of the United Nations, Trump announced to the whole world that Washington is prepared to “totally destroy North Korea.”

Admittedly, there is a serious debate in Washington about employing what they call the “bloody nose policy” against Pyongyang. The total destruction will be inflicted by a “preventive war”, promoted by Trump’s former National Security Adviser, Herbert McMaster, and the incumbent neocon John Bolton. Agreeing with their stance is Henry Kissinger, the National Security Adviser under President Nixon. Testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Kissinger points out that “The temptation to deal with” North Korea “with a pre-emptive attack is strong and the argument is rational.” This is madness. The “rational” argument advocates for a nuclear war and genocide. The North Korean side, moreover, has repeatedly requested for peace negotiations – all rejected by Washington.

Unsurprisingly, however, the “bloody nose policy” was not received well by the American public, amidst the ongoing propaganda campaign about the North Korean threat.

To reverse the words of the U.S. State Department spokesperson, this can’t be regarded “as the behavior of a responsible international player.” While purposely escalating tensions, the United States is driving the world towards war.

Public Opinion vs. Power

The growing threat of war is measured fairly by the Doomsday Clock. Developed and updated by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, since 1947, the clock measures the proximity of a catastrophe that will endanger, if not extinguish, the conditions for an organized existence of human beings on Earth. When America and Soviet Union enabled the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the doomsday clock was set at 12 minutes before the midnight, a point of the hypothetical global disaster. The threat was at its lowest – 17 minutes before the midnight – when the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991. Since then, however, the instability in the world caused by Washington’s desire to retain a unipolar supremacy has increased the risks dramatically. For the year 2018, the clock was set at 2 minutes before midnight. Today, humanity is as close to a catastrophe as it was at the height of the Cold War in 1953.

Operating within the structure of power, ignoring this danger, and perpetuating the status quo that brought us to this point, indeed, is equivalent of committing a crime against humanity. The contemporary rivalry between two nuclear powers can’t be logically justified.

If the leaders of both countries are genuinely concerned about defending the interests of their citizens, then it should be their priority to diffuse friction. Interestingly, while enhancing its defense policy, Russia, still, seems to show greater eagerness for detente than Washington and NATO. In his interview with the Russian leader, Oliver Stone asked why Putin persistently refers to the West as “our partners.” The answer was immediate: the “dialogue has to be pursued further.”

It is, moreover, safe to judge that most people in the world do not regard nuclear weapons as a guarantor of peace. Within the domestic realm of the American empire, 77 percent of people favor elimination of all nuclear weapons. An important message was also delivery by the United Nations General Assembly vote for the resolution L.41, a “legally binding instrument to prohibit nuclear weapons, leading towards their total elimination.” In the 2016, as many as 123 countries, including North Korea, voted in favor of the resolution. Only 39 voted against. Unsurprisingly, the major nuclear powers were among them. Interesting, nonetheless, is the behavior of small NATO states in Eastern Europe: many of them, too, voted for the doctrine of those leading the world towards destruction.

Eliminating the risk, as well as changing the status quo of unilateral extremism and imperialism, is not an impossible task. For they attain enough political influence, the citizens of the empire have always posed a threat to the imperial structure.  As a proud imperialist, Krauthammer understood this threat and summarized it in the following way:

“Can America support its unipolar status? Yes. But will Americans support such unipolar status? That is a more problematic question. For a small but growing chorus of Americans this vision of a unipolar world led by a dynamic America is a nightmare.”

He is right.

Posted in WorldComments Off on Why the Nuclear War Is No Longer Unthinkable?

Two Minutes to Midnight: The Global Nuclear Suicide Machine


“The unleashed power of the atom has changed everything save human way of thinking and thus we drift toward unparalleled catastrophes.” Albert Einstein 1946

Daniel Ellsberg, former presidential advisor, who has released the famous top-secret Pentagon Papers related to the Viet Nam war[ii], has also possessed a cache of top secret documents related to America’s nuclear program in the 1960s. In this book “The Doomsday MachineConfessions of a Nuclear War Planner”[iii] (5/12/2017) he reveals the contents of those documents, with their shocking relevance for today. It is an insider’s account of the most dangerous arms buildup in the history of the world, whose legacy threatens the very survival of humanity. Ellsberg’s analysis of recent research on nuclear winter shows that even a small nuclear exchange could expand to cause billions of deaths by global nuclear famine.

Much of the nuclear research has been done in secrecy in both the west and east blocks. Few insiders with comprehensive knowledge of the consequences of nuclear detonations have revealed these secrets, the most prominent being Daniel Ellsberg. One of the more alarming parts of the book is the a number of people to whom authority is delegated to pull the trigger on nuclear weapons, as stated:

With respect to deliberate, authorized US strategic attacks, the system has always been designed to be triggered by a far wider range of events than the public has ever imagine… Moreover, the hand authorized to pull the trigger on US nuclear forces has never been exclusively that of the president, nor even his highest military officials”.

This renders the likelihood of a nuclear exchange significantly greater.Russia has a similar protocol, known as the Dead Hand system delegating authority to retaliate to a US strike in the event that the country’s commanders were taken out. Similar delegations likely exist in other nuclear countries. Consequently the triggering of nuclear war is now in the hands of a large number of people.

Since the first atomic test in Alamogordo, Nevada, 6 August 1945, the global powers have undertaken the construction of a global nuclear suicide machine on a scale that defies human contemplation. The desperate urgency of the existence of thousands of launch-on-warning state nuclear weapons has been grossly underestimated, receiving limited focus in the culpable mainstream media, preoccupied as it is with parochial politics, sport and sex scandals.

Sydney Drell, a physicist and nuclear weapons expert[iv], commented on the proximity of a nuclear exchange in the following terms:

Given all the close calls and mistakes in the 71 years since Hiroshima, he considered it a miracle that no other cities have been destroyed by a nuclear weapon — “it is so far beyond my normal optimism”.

The likelihood of nuclear war has risen due to the Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) strategy and launch on warning,namely use-them-or–lose them strategies, has decreased human control, rendering N-war possible due to computer errors. The fear of losing nuclear assets has driven launch pads to increased mobility, on submarines, trucks and trains, increasing the likelihood of accidental nuclear war.

The Castle Bravo hydrogen bomb test, March 1, 1954, Bikini Atoll, Marshall Islands[v]  The most powerful nuclear device detonated, yielding was 15 megatons of TNT, leading to unexpected radioactive contamination of areas to the east of Bikini Atoll. Fallout on residents of Rongelap and Utirik atolls spread around the world. The blast incited international reaction over atmospheric thermonuclear testing.

But the consequences of a nuclear exchange belong to the unthinkable. According to the article titled Nuclear War, Nuclear Winter, and Human Extinction (Starr 2015 – director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program[vi]), apart from the immediate destruction by nuclear explosions[vii]:

  1. Nuclear firestorms would burn simultaneously over a total land surface area of many thousands or tens of thousands of square miles. These mass fires would release many tens of millions of tons of black carbon soot and smoke which would rise rapidly above cloud level and into the stratosphere;
  2. A nuclear winter would cause most humans and large animals to die from nuclear famine in a mass extinction event similar to the one that wiped out the dinosaurs;
  3. Sunlight would heat the smoke, producing a self-lofting effect that would not only aid the rise of the smoke into the stratosphere but act to keep the smoke in the stratosphere for 10 years or more. Once in the stratosphere, the smoke would rapidly engulf the Earth and form a dense stratospheric smoke layer. The smoke from a war fought with strategic nuclear weapons would quickly prevent up to 70% of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Northern Hemisphere and 35% of sunlight from reaching the surface of the Southern Hemisphere;
  4. Such an enormous loss of warming sunlight would produce Ice Age weather conditions on Earth in a matter of weeks. For a period of 1–3 years following the war, temperatures would fall below freezing every day in the central agricultural zones of North America and Eurasia;
  5. Nuclear winter would cause average global surface temperatures to become colder than they were at the height of the last Ice Age. Such extreme cold would eliminate growing seasons for many years, probably for a decade or longer;
  6. Temperatures would be much too cold to grow food, and they would remain this way long enough to cause most humans and animals to starve to death;
  7. Global nuclear famine would result in a setting in which the infrastructure of the combatant nations has been totally destroyed, resulting in massive amounts of chemical and radioactive toxins being released into the biosphere.

An important review of Ellsberg’s book by Scott Ludlam “Nuclear brinkmanship and the doomsday scenario”[viii] states, among other:

This work isn’t scary in the conventional sense. It is quietly terrifying. No matter how bad you think the global nuclear weapons complex is, it is worse than you know. Much worse Ellsberg knows this because he helped design it” and “Today, at the highest levels, the doomsday machine is renewing itself. Nuclear weapons states have essentially cast aside the 40-year charade that they intend to honor their disarmament obligations under the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT). This legal instrument has come to serve chiefly for enforcement of a kind of global nuclear apartheid where a tiny handful of states maintain the capacity to commit unthinkable destruction while the great majority of the world’s governments forswear against ever adopting the technology.”… “This, then, is the doomsday machine. Not simply the existence of fission weapons or unspeakably destructive hydrogen bombs, but the whole network rigged together: thousands of them on hair-trigger alert, command and control equipment built in the 1970s and ’80s, millions of lines of antique code sitting on reels of magnetic tape or shuffled around on floppy discs even now. An architecture tended by fallible and deeply institutionalized human beings, some of them with bigger buttons than others. A weapons arsenal premised on the fact that it can never be used, threatened with use every day since 1945, and now costing roughly $100 billion a year globally to maintain and upgrade.”

To date the nuclear-armed nations have declined to endorse the Nuclear Ban Treaty[ix] initiated (ICAN) International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Arms[x].

The future of the world hangs on a thread.

Posted in WorldComments Off on Two Minutes to Midnight: The Global Nuclear Suicide Machine

Resisting Nazi Tyranny a Legitimate Palestinian Right


Resisting Israeli Tyranny a Legitimate Palestinian Right



Resisting tyranny is a universal right. Thomas Jefferson called it “obedience to God.”

In his second Treatise of Government, John Locke defended the “right of revolution,” saying when government fails the people, its “trust (is) forfeited…power devolv(ing) into the hands of those that gave it.”

In his landmark “Civil Disobedience” essay, Henry David Thoreau defended “the right of revolution…the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.”

Ralph Waldo Emerson supported the right to resist unjust laws on moral grounds.

Martin Luther King defended the right to resist, saying

“I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.”

Half a century of Israeli military occupation turned historic Palestine into an armed camp hostile to Arabs – persecuted and unwanted, terrorized and brutalized, countless numbers imprisoned and tortured, thousands murdered by wars, assassinations, and industrial-scale cold-blooded murder.

Throughout its history, Israel defied international laws, norms and standards, including numerous Security Council and General Assembly resolutions.

Israel wants Palestinian history, culture and collective memory erased – Judaization a policy of de-Arabization, colonizers brutalizing the colonized, supported by the West instead of denounced, the rights of millions of Palestinians (including diaspora ones) ignored.

The Nakba never ended, ongoing throughout the Occupied Territories, stealing Palestinian land, terrorizing and displacing its inhabitants, killing them with impunity.

Former IDF chief of staff/Israeli politician Moshe Dayan once said

“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages.”

“You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist, not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either.”

“There is not one single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”

While Judaization of historic Palestine proceeded, countless amounts of Palestinian possessions were looted by Zionist militias – stolen from homes, government offices, libraries and other facilities.

In their film “The Great Book Robbery,” Benny Brunner and Arjan El Fassed explained a well-planned anti-Palestinian offensive, saying:

“For decades, Zionist and Israeli propaganda described the Palestinians as ‘people without culture.’ “

“Thus, the victorious Israeli state took upon itself to civilize the Palestinians who remained within its borders at the end of the 1948 war.”

“They were forbidden to study their own culture or to remember their immediate past. Their memory was seen as a dangerous weapon that had to be suppressed and controlled.”

What began during Israel’s so-called war of independence, continues today – Jerusalem and Gaza the twin-epicenters of Israel’s aim to establish unchallenged control over historic Palestine by brute force, eliminating resistance throughout the Occupied Territories.

Century ago Zionists wanted a future Jewish state to include Palestine, southern Lebanon, southwestern Syria including Golan, western Jordan and Egypt’s Sinai.

The notion of a greater Israel persists, the Jewish state complicit with Washington in wanting to redraw the Middle East map, replacing sovereign independent governments with pro-Western puppet regimes, partitioning Iraq, Syria, Iran, and other regional countries for easier control.

Israeli violence in Gaza since Friday continues, part of a longstanding pattern of persecution, aiming to terrorize Palestinians into submission to a Jewish occupier.

On Sunday, Israeli soldiers attacked East Jerusalem Palestinian residents, around 100 reported injured, mostly from live fire.

More injuries occurred in Gaza since Friday’s bloodbath, a pattern likely to continue throughout the “Great (Palestinian) March of Return,” ongoing until mid-May.

Israel enforces control by violent suppression of justifiable resistance. The self-styled “world’s most moral army” is one of the most ruthless.

Posted in Palestine Affairs, ZIO-NAZIComments Off on Resisting Nazi Tyranny a Legitimate Palestinian Right

Shoah’s pages


April 2018
« Mar   May »