Archive | May 27th, 2019

Russia’s Military Deal with the Congo Republic Completes Its African “Corridor of Influence”


Russia’s dispatch of specialists to the Congo Republic (Congo-Brazzaville) in order to maintain military equipment completes Moscow’s plan of creating a corridor of influence across the continent from the Sudanese Red Sea coast to the Congolese Atlantic one via the Central African Republic, which therefore greatly increases the chances that it’ll ultimately succeed with its 21st-century grand strategy of becoming the supreme Afro-Eurasian “balancing” force in the New Cold War.

The “African Transversal”

Most observers missed it because it wasn’t given much media attention at the time, but Russia and the Congo Republic (Congo-Brazzaville, henceforth referred to simply as the Congo) signed an important deal last week for dispatching specialists to the African country in order to maintain the military equipment that Moscow sold it over the decades. While seemingly nothing more than a technical agreement, it actually completes Moscow’s plan of creating a corridor of influence across the continent (the “African Transversal”) from the Sudanese Red Sea coast to the Congolese Atlantic one via the Central African Republic (CAR) where a small contingent of Russian troops are reportedly working with Wagner’s mercenaries under UNSC approval in order to stabilize the war-torn but resource-rich country. Put another way, Russia is now much more powerfully positioned to succeed with its 21st-century grand strategy of becoming the supreme Afro-Eurasian “balancing” force in the New Cold War if it can successfully export its “Democratic Security” model of countering Hybrid Warfare to the rest of the continent.

Required Reading

The reader is probably unaware of what this all means since most people haven’t been following Russia’s “Pivot to Africa” over the past year and a half, which is why the reader is strongly encouraged to skim through the author’s following pieces in order to obtain a better understanding of the larger dynamics involved or at the very least read the one-sentence summaries below each of the articles:

New Cold War pressure from the US and China is leading to the redivision of Africa into “spheres of influence” between the many competing Great Powers, which nevertheless provides Russia — which has been largely left out of this game until now — with the chance to carve out its own military-strategic niche there in order to complement the activities of its Chinese and Turkish partners and increase its overall value to each of them.

The reported involvement of the Wager private military company in CAR could enable Moscow to cost-effectively stabilize the country in exchange for lucrative extraction contracts, which could lead to the creation of an exportable model for securing China’s Silk Road investments in the continent and therefore increasing Russia’s strategic importance vis-a-vis its main Great Power partner.

Russia aspires to become the supreme “balancing” force in 21s-century Afro-Eurasia through a combination of creative diplomatic and military interventions aimed at reversing the chaotic consequences of the US’ Hybrid Wars in the Eastern Hemisphere and facilitating political solutions to regional crises, but its main shortcoming is that it hasn’t properly explained its grand strategy to the international audience.

As Russia began to make progress in successfully stabilizing CAR, many opportunities have emerged for it to replicate some of its experiences from the Syrian intervention in order to sustain its strategic gains in the African state, further allowing it to perfect its new military-diplomatic model and increasing the odds of exporting it elsewhere.

A UN report released last summer provided some valuable authoritative information about the success that Russia’s military mission in CAR had up until that point, which also importantly touched upon some specific details of its deployment and a few of the challenges that still remain for bringing peace to the conflict-beleaguered country.

China and India are poised to intensify their competition in East Africa through their Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) and Asia-Africa Growth Corridor (AAGC) hemispheric integrational megaprojects, respectively, which while diminishing the prospects for a grand convergence between them that strengthens multipolarity, could nevertheless increase Russia’s irreplaceable “balancing” role between its two main Asian partners.

US concerns about Russia’s growing influence in Africa are somewhat valid even if Moscow’s military activity there is officially misportrayed by the American authorities since the country’s geopolitical rival has proven itself more than capable of doing the hitherto politically impossible by stabilizing CAR, which makes Washington fear that Moscow will use what it learned to protect China’s African Silk Road investments from Hybrid War too.

Unbeknownst to all but the closest observers, Africa has been experiencing an almost decade-long spree of non-electoral regime changes all across the continent, which has raised the alarm of “legacy” leaders in places such as the geo-pivotal Congo and therefore increased demand all across Africa for the “Democratic Security” model that Moscow’s perfecting in the CAR.

Taken together, the prevailing trend is that Russia has been so wildly successful in implementing its low-cost and low-commitment “Democratic Security” model in CAR that many other African countries are now more than eager to have Moscow share its priceless state-stabilization experiences with them in exchange for valuable extraction contracts, which could lead to Russia becoming the vanguard defender of their Silk Roads.

The Threat To Françafrique

Being better aware of Russia’s grand strategic aims in Africa, the reader can now appreciate the genius behind  Moscow’s latest military move in the Congo. This geo-pivotal country used to be a close Soviet ally during the Old Cold War years when it was ruled by a Marxist-Leninist government, and nowadays it’s at the center of several regional fault lines, something that its long-serving leader Denis Sassou-Nguesso made sure to remind Putin of during their face-to-face meeting last week. Going clockwise, the Congo abuts CAR, the perennially unstable Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the oil-rich Angolan exclave of Cabinda that’s occasionally hit by separatist violence, coup-threatened Gabon, and doubly Hybrid War-afflictedCameroon that’s currently suffering simultaneous Angolophone separatist and Boko Haram destabilizations. It’s likely with an eye to having Russia help stabilize this strategic space through its “Democratic Security” model that Sassou-Nguesso told Putin that his country can help Africa build a new regional security system.

Russia’s “African Transversal” through Sudan-CAR-Congo significantly cuts the continent into almost two equal halves of influence that roughly correspond to the Western sphere where French and EU interests are predominant and the Eastern one where Chinese and Indian one are poised to compete, therefore positioning Moscow right in the center the new “Scramble for Africa”. Not only that, but it also allows Russia to export its “Democratic Security” model to the states adjacent to its “African Transversal” in the French/EU and Chinese/Indian “spheres of influence” that are at the highest risk of internal conflict (e.g. Cameroon/Chad and the DRC/Ethiopia), further increasing its “balancing” importance for both of them. In addition, the new non-aligned movement (“Neo-NAM”) that Russia might be in the process of assembling to increase the odds of reaching a “New Detente” could very easily incorporate its growing number of African partners who are looking for a “third way” between the West and China in each respective “sphere of influence”.

In the African context, the Russian-led “Neo-NAM” would be more to France’s detriment than China’s because Paris’ neo-colonial policy of Françafrique stands the most to lose from the diversification of its partners’ Great Power patrons. It’s worthwhile keeping in mind that two of the three “African Transversal” countries are part of Françafrique and use the Paris-issued “Central African Franc” as their national currency, which could gradually change if Russia encourages CAR and the Congo to use rubles in bilateral extraction, military, and other contracts instead in order to strengthen its currency and increase the chances that its investments there will be recycled back into its own economy through the creation of a complex system of economic-strategic interdependence with time. That vision is still a far way’s off from hapening, but the fact remains that it’s credible enough of a scenario to make France afraid for the future of Françafrique if Russia’s “Democratic Security” gains in and around the “African Transversal” remain unchecked.

“Red October”

Like any globally assertive Great Power and following in its Soviet superpower’s footsteps, Russia wants to institutionalize its influence abroad and especially in Africa, which is why it’s hosting its first-ever all-inclusive Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi this October in order to solidify its newfound gains and diversify them across the board. Russia’s “Democratic Security” model laid the basis for its “Pivot to Africa” through the newly created “African Transversal” that it carved out through these means in connecting the Red Sea and Atlantic Ocean coasts through Sudan-CAR-Congo, and now it wants to build upon its strategic successes by comprehensively branching out into all other spheres. “Military diplomacy” simply won’t suffice for sustaining its strategic gains after the US announced that it’s considering sanctioning all of Russia’s military partners across the world, so Moscow needs to urgently diversify its partnerships with the continent’s many countries in order to incentivize them into resisting the US’ forthcoming pressure campaign.

It can foreseeably do this by combining its “Democratic Security” model with real-sector economic benefits such as infrastructure (and especially railway) investments, free trade deals, educational support, low-interest loans, and diplomatic support at the UN in order to create an attractive enough package to get them to reconsider going along with the US’ demands. Dealing with African countries on a bilateral basis in this respect is one thing, but entering into continental-wide Russian-African cooperation through the upcoming summit is something altogether qualitatively different, which can help overcome Russia’s soft power shortcomings touched upon in the previously mentioned piece about its grand strategy if it get its many current and prospective partners to better understand the role that it envisions itself playing in stabilizing their affairs throughout the course of the ongoing New Cold War.

The “African Transversal” is the staging point for expanding Russian influence throughout the rest of the continent in its French/EU and Chinese/Indian “spheres of influence”, with CAR’s impressive stabilization held up as the prime example of what a strategic partnership with Russia is capable of achieving. This is extremely attractive for the many countries confronting the threat of the “African Spring” spreading into their borders or uncontrollably continuing after it already succeeded there. The EU (apart from France) might also appreciate the effect that Russia’s “Democratic Security” model could have in preventing a Migrant Crisis 2.0 from exploding in West Africa, just like China might see the need to contract Russia’s services in order to protect its Silk Road and help the People’s Republic avoid what many believe will be its inevitable “mission creep” in this respect. It’s really only the US and France (which are one another’s “special partners“) that fear the spread of Russian influence throughout Africa, and those two could conceivably pose serious challenges to Moscow.

Concluding Thoughts

Russia’s “African Transversal” is complete after the military deal that it just sealed with the Congo, which therefore gives it the entire summer to solidify its strategic gains in the cross-continental tri-state space between that country, CAR, and Sudan prior to this October’s first-ever Russia-Africa Summit in Sochi. Just as importantly, the Congo is the second country that Russia is working very hard to “poach” from France’s  Françafrique neo-colonial “sphere of influence”, which certainly puts it at odds with Paris and its “special partners” in Washington but might enable Moscow to leverage these optics to its soft power advantage if it’s skillful enough to tap into the region’s ever-present decolonization hopes that were never met in practice after independence. Russia would therefore be wise to use the upcoming Sochi Summit to not only unveil a comprehensive continental-wide “balancing” strategy that diversifies away from its erstwhile “Democratic Security” dependence into the real-sector economic sphere, but to also channel its Soviet-era reputation of supporting decolonization and anti-imperialist processes in order to maximize the appeal of the Neo-NAM.

Posted in DR Congo, RussiaComments Off on Russia’s Military Deal with the Congo Republic Completes Its African “Corridor of Influence”

Turkish Dreams of a “Radical Islamic Annex” in Northern Syria Fade Away


Jihadists in Idlib unite under Turkey’s Erdogan as commander in Chief

From the day the war began in March 2011 in Deraa, the political ideology of Radical Islam has been center stage.  From the outset of the Syrian conflict, the men who carried weapons were all fighting to abolish the secular Syrian government, in order to form a new government which would be Radical Islam.  They saw their Christianneighbors as ‘heathens’ that needed to be slaughtered.  They were not interested in freedom or democracy; they were fighting to cleanse Syria of anyone who wasn’t like them. 

Erdogan, the Turkish leader, was tasked by his NATO co-signers with the job of being the transit pointof international jihadists pouring in to bolster the failing Free Syrian Army (FSA), and the source of supplies and weapons for the NATO-backed ‘boots on the ground’, who hailed from the 4 corners of the globe.  Turkey benefited immensely from the flow of weapons, cash, chemicals, terrorists, and from the huge amount of humanitarian aid pouring in for Syrian refugees.

Erdogan didn’t have to worry about Turkish citizens complaining about Radical Islam, because his ruling AK Party was based on hard-core Islam and was in the process of turning secular Turkey into a Muslim Brotherhood safe haven, and he had a policy of silencing critics.

Erdogan developed a dream of annexing the Northern strip of Syria. His dream was about to be realized, but the Idlib offensive began recently, and his dream is turning into a nightmare.  He had supported the FSA and all the terrorists, whom he calls ‘rebels’, regardless that they are Al Qaeda affiliates, and many were associates of ISIS. He is now sending re-enforcements to Idlib, supplied with sophisticated weapons. However, the terrorists he commands are not using aircraft, except for drones.

Posted in Syria, TurkeyComments Off on Turkish Dreams of a “Radical Islamic Annex” in Northern Syria Fade Away

Prior to the Cold War: US Nuclear Plans Entailed Blowing Up Hundreds of Chinese, Soviet and Eastern European Cities


On 30 August 1945, Major General Lauris Norstad dispatched a document to his superior, General Leslie Groves, outlining a total of 15 “key Soviet cities” to be struck with US atomic weapons, headed by the capital Moscow. This was followed by another 25 “leading Soviet cities” listed for annihilation, topping this latter group was Leningrad, almost destroyed during the Nazi siege finally lifted in late January 1944.

The above nuclear plans were being composed three days before the Second World War had even officially concluded (on 2 September 1945), and a mere two weeks following Japan’s surrender.

These initiatives, targeting the USSR for destruction, were actually developing at least as early as March 1944, at a time when Moscow was a vital wartime ally. Due to ongoing Soviet intelligence reports, Stalin was privy to America’s nuclear project most certainly by April 1942, but quite likely earlier.

Meanwhile, Japan’s political leaders were compelled to surrender on 15 August 1945, after the US military threatened to drop more atomic weapons over the country. This would have just been feasible, with the Pentagon holding a further two atomic bombs in its stockpile during the latter part of 1945.

In the days stretching beyond late August 1945, Groves’ and Norstad’s schemes of ruin were enlarging. On 15 September 1945, a highly classified document relating to their plan expounded in stark tones that,

“The immediate destruction of the enemy’s will [USSR] and capacity to resist is the primary objective of the United States Army Strategic Air Forces”, to be focused upon “the enemy centers of industry, transportation and population”.

That same day, 15 September 1945, Groves and Norstad estimated that over five dozen Soviet metropolises, 66 altogether, should be obliterated with 204 atomic bombs – a “revolutionary” weapon which was “spectacularly successful” in desolating Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was calculated that these 66 cities held 100% of the Soviet Union’s aluminium production, 97% of its tanks, 95% of its aircraft, 95% of its oil refining capacity, etc.

This declassified material – virtually ignored by commercial media and largely avoided by alternative news – is of particularly high importance, as it blows apart the long-purported myths that the so-called Cold War began in 1947. It further debunks claims that resumption of hostilities was due to Soviet antagonism.

A top secret Pentagon document, once more dated 15 September 1945, outlined explicitly that,

“the destruction of the Russian capability to wage war has therefore been used as a basis upon which to predicate the United States’ atomic bomb requirements”.

Ever eastwards, more than 20 cities in Soviet-occupied Manchuria were also “investigated” for atomic attacks, but it was eventually decided this resource-rich region “is not an integral part of the USSR”.

America’s atomic arsenal unleashed over the Soviet Union would, preferably, be delivered by the upcoming B-36 “Peacemaker” six-engine bomber, with its remarkable 230 foot wingspan – and not, as thought, with the smaller B-29 “Superfortress” aircraft, fresh from discharging two bombs over Japan.

The B-29’s roaming capacity was that of more than 5,000 miles without refuelling, but even this impressive distance had its limitations for what was now envisaged. By comparison, the B-36 boasted a flying range of 10,000 miles.

The B-36 could in fact fly from Washington to Moscow, drop its terrible load, and subsequently return to the American capital without having stopped once there or back (combined distance 9,700 miles). This feat would also have been achievable for the B-36 regarding other Soviet cities such as Leningrad, Kiev, Kharkov, and so on. Yet the B-36 would not be available for such operations until finally entering service during mid-1948, and even after that the aircraft necessitated further adjustment.

Failing the proposed deployment of 204 atomic bombs, a “minimum requirement” of 123 atomic weapons was contemplated, while at the opposite end of the spectrum an “optimum requirement” constituted an eye-watering 466 bombs.

In September 1945 the “minimum requirement” of 123 bombs was not realistic, let alone the 466 figure, and indeed the latter number was then not seriously considered. By June 1948, America’s nuclear cache still consisted of a modest 50 atomic weapons. Moscow was now to be struck with eight bombs, Leningrad with seven.

From mid-1948, America’s atomic numbers ballooned as the age of “nuclear plenty” was born. By the summer of 1949, Washington had the required 200-plus atomic bombs so as to deliver their Soviet apocalypse.

Yet Russia, recognizing the threat facing their state, had feverishly been constructing their own nuclear weapons. Just as the US arsenal was approaching requisite size, in August 1949 the Soviets detonated an atomic device over Semipalatinsk, in north-eastern Kazakhstan.

The USSR’s nuclear explosion, near identical to that of America’s Nagasaki bomb, was detected within days by the US Air Force. After they crosschecked the Soviets’ atomic debris, president Harry Truman, informed of the news, was appalled.

Posted in USAComments Off on Prior to the Cold War: US Nuclear Plans Entailed Blowing Up Hundreds of Chinese, Soviet and Eastern European Cities

Authoritarian Spirits: Congress, the Espionage Act and Punishing WikiLeaks


The time was 1917, and for anyone keen to impress us about any liberal feelings on the part of President Woodrow Wilson, the following should be said.  Having deemed the United States too proud to fight, he proceeded to commit the very same to the first global industrial conflict of its kind and overturn every reservation against backing the Franco-German alliance.  Initial constipation and weary restraint gave way to a full-blooded commitment against Kaiserism.

In doing so, the nasty instrument known as the Espionage Act of 1917 came into being, a product of disdain in the face of the First Amendment’s solemn words that “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”

The Espionage Act, also known as 18 USC 793, has been a bother to a good number in the legal profession. It was, according to Charles P. Pierce, “the immortal gift of that half-nutty professor, Woodrow Wilson, and his truly awful attorney general, A. Mitchell Palmer.”  Even then, Wilson was disappointed, given that the final document was somewhat more diluted from its initial concentrate featuring wide-ranging press censorship and the targeting of anarchists.

In the words of law academic Stephen Vladeck, the law “draws no distinction between the leaker, the recipient of the leak, or the 100th person to redistribute, retransmit, or even retain the national defence information that by that point is already in the public domain.”

The overstretch with prosecuting Julian Assange is comprehensible, in so far as security concerns are a psychosis, a junkie’s fascination with secrecy.  Applied to Chelsea Manning in 2011, it led to the imposition of a 35-year sentence that was subsequently commuted.  The superseding indictmentagainst Assange and WikiLeaks goes even further in in its inventive paranoia, seeking to implicate the publisher as instigator and, effectively, the entire process of distribution.  Seek, receive, and be damned.

While Assange will never fit neatly into any categories of obedience and observance, the crude scope, and motivation behind the use of the Espionage Act, remains.  The descriptions in the immediate aftermath of the law’s passage are worth nothing.  In October 1918, Wisconsin Senator Robert La Follette rose to proclaim that,

“Today and for weeks past honest and law-abiding citizens of this country are being terrorized and outraged in their rights by those sworn to uphold the laws and protect the rights of the people.”

The senator spoke of a state of unnecessarily wild and zealous policing.  Unlawful arrests had been perpetrated; people thrown into jail had been “held incommunicado for days, only to be eventually discharged without even having been taken to court, because they have committed no crime.”

The Espionage Act was not used sparingly, becoming a weapon of choice to criminalise efforts to obstruct the war effort with mere words.  Elizabeth Baer and Charles Schenck were some of the first notable targets, accused of mailing some 15,000 anti-war flyers to potential conscripted recruits urging peaceful disobedience.

On appeal to the Supreme Court, the First Amendment was shorn in a palpable trimming of civil liberties. In its place was the modifying “clear and present danger” test, showing that the courts were, even more than Congress, keen to impute severe intentions on how broad the Espionage Act was meant to be.  (Indeed, most senators had to admit they had little clue on what the provisions of the Act actually meant.)

In the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes,

“The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man in falsely shouting fire in a theatre and causing a panic.”

Rather grimly, the judicial bench made the all too willing concession to the urges of the warring state.

“When a nation is at war, many things that might be said in time of peace are such a hindrance to its effort that their utterance will not be endured so long as men fight, and that no Court could regard them as protected by any constitutional right.”

Other socialist activists of the form and determination of Kate Richards O’Hare also fell foul of the law, being sentenced to five years for violating its provisions.  Socialist party members C.E. Ruthenberg, A. Wagenknecht and Charles Baker also faced prison terms for aiding and abetting those failing to register for the draft.

One of the most notorious victims of the Espionage Act was the leading founding member of the Socialist Party of America, Eugene V. Debs.  Debs found himself in prison as a result, having given a public speech inciting his audience to interfere with military recruitment whilst referring to the harsh fate of his fellow socialist activists.  His assessment of the situation was appropriately brave.  “I would rather a thousand times be a free soul in jail than to be a sycophant and coward in the streets.”

On appeal, the US Supreme Court affirmed, in a unanimous opinion delivered by the persistently unsympathetic Justice Holmes, the harsh line it had taken in Schenck.  Debs’s sympathy for individuals opposing the draft and interfering with the recruitment process was punishable and beyond the scope of protection.  The speech, even if did mention socialism interspersed with a range of other observations, was “not protected by reason of its being part of a general program and expressions of a general and conscientious belief.”  Quibbling be thy name.

While the United States is currently not officially at war, it can hardly be said to be at peace.  Engaged in low, slow burning conflicts on several continents, the US imperium continues its warring peace endeavours with a certain insatiability.  The case against Assange is an attempt to internationalise the punishment of those who would dare publish, write or discuss matters at the heart of what Gore Vidal did title, with much sorrow, the National Security State.  But as Senator La Follette observed with steely warning, taking aim at the Espionage Act, “More than in times of peace it is necessary that the channels for free public discussion of governmental policies shall be open and unclogged.”

Posted in USAComments Off on Authoritarian Spirits: Congress, the Espionage Act and Punishing WikiLeaks

The Ever Dependable Bully on Embassy Row; Venezuela and Iraq Are No Longer Worlds Apart


Embassy raided; citizens starved by sanctions; coveted oil resources targeted — again.

The United States is still punishing Iran for the 1979 takeover of its ‘sacred’ premises, its embassy in Tehran. By contrast, when American authorities occupy another nation’s embassy there’s nothing but approval from the American public and silent acquiescence by others. I don’t know about you, but I heard no outcry, not even a quiet show of concern emanating from the diplomatic corridors of Washington or New York earlier this month around the violation of sovereign diplomatic property—that of Venezuela. That hush recalls a similar embassy breakin—the American assault on and occupation of the Iraqi embassy on Massachusetts Avenue in late 1990.

Anticipating the recent incursion, at least the Venezuelan administration was able to remove their files and to arrange with a brave team of American supporters, The Embassy Protection Collective, to occupy the building for as long as possible in order to attract some media attention to the threat and eventual (illegal) takeover of its property by U.S. law enforcement personnel. That handful of activists stood against not only a police force, but a menacing crowd of Venezuelan opposition supporters eager to assume control of the building in the name of U.S.-backed Venezuelan president-in-waiting Juan Guaido.

The 1990 assault on the Iraqi embassy went unnoticed and completely unprotested at any level. At that time, a public unfamiliar with Kuwait (and Iraq) was overwhelmed by terrifying media accounts of an unspeakable military aggression. Worldwide, emotions were swiftly roused by images of a new Hitler; Saddam Hussein was reframed as a menace to the entire world, his arsenal directed at Europe.

There wasn’t a whimper when Washington’s Iraq embassy was stormed and barricaded. It would remain empty and barred to any Iraqi presence for more than 12 years (until 2003 when the U.S. occupied Iraq and installed its chosen leaders in Baghdad).

The American assault proceeded at multiple levels, as with Venezuela, but more rapidly in Iraq’s case and with blanket global approval. Within a mere four days, after the August 2, 1990 invasion of Kuwait, an unprecedented international embargo, probably drawn up in anticipation of an Iraqi miscalculation and blunder — was imposed on the nation of 18 million. It was comprehensive, ruthlessly policed and internationally adhered to, lasting long after Iraq’s weapons-of-mass-destruction were neutralized, after billions of dollars of Iraqi revenue from controlled oil sales were essentially stolen, after the country’s overseas holdings were impounded, after treasures were pillaged, after millions died or were stricken by embargo-related illnesses and starvation, after medicines were long unavailable, and after millions of its citizens fled in search of relief from that punishing siege.

Sound familiar? Today we hear how Venezuelans’ health and living standards have deteriorated, how unemployment is driving poverty, how American allies have frozen Venezuelan assets held in their banks, how millions of desperate citizens have emigrated, how Maduro is a tyrant, how his police are smothering dissent, how opposition is deepening — all endorsed by American media and members of Congress’ support for regime change.

Thus far, remarkably, Venezuela has resisted outside efforts to instigate a coup and impose its chosen leader. A few voices are calling for a negotiated settlement to the standoff, although Amnesty International is playing its part in demonizing the Maduro government. Recall how AI affirmed the story of Kuwaiti babies ripped from hospital incubators by Iraq’s occupying forces– a phony but effective ploy later exposed.

Iraqi people’s resistance to the murderous U.S. embargo was noble but the experience was nevertheless silently punishing—a war whose harmful ramifications continue today. It was a brutal siege worth remembering because of this, also because the deaths and suffering during that 13-year prelude to the invasion is not calculated into the Iraq war record. Neither are they included in U.S. war crimes and obfuscations by our media.

First, the 1990 embargo on Iraq was wholeheartedly sanctioned by the United Nations. Second, within a few months the U.S. led a massive bombing campaign to drive Iraqi troops from Kuwait and to bomb key infrastructure in the Iraqi capital and other population centers. That strategy smashed bridges and factories and the nationwide power grid, unleashing a plague of toxicity that would infect Iraq’s water, its soil and its air for decades—a plague that persists to the present. American-led bombing continued for years, theoretically aimed at an illegal ‘no-fly zone’ prohibiting flights in the north but effective nationwide, allowing allied jets (mainly U.S., British, and French) to terrorize the entire population. Well documented but little known were summer attacks by fighter jets loaded with incendiary bombs that set Iraq’s ripened wheat fields alight, destroying one of the people’s few domestic sources of food.

While the Bush Sr. administration designed and imposed the embargo, the succeeding Democratic Clinton presidency (1993-2001) strictly maintained it. So critics of the current policy against Venezuela who blame a pugilistic Trump administration need to recognize this is a tried and tested non-partisan American—Republican and Democrat—war policy.

Eventually—rather late, as is often the case— documents would provide details of that embargo war. My own reports joining voices of colleagues, notably John Pilger, Felicity Arbuthnot, Kathy Kelly, George Galloway and the International Action Center led by former attorney general Ramsey Clark, documented devastation wrought by the embargo.

It was only in 2012, after the U.S. invasion and occupation ended, when noble institutions like Harvard Press risked publishing The Invisible War: The United States and Iraq Sanctions, a study of that episode. Also belatedly (in 2010) came Cultural Cleansing in Iraq, a credible account of the pillaging of Iraq following the U.S. invasion.

What informs our consciousness of that distant war today? Accounts of ISIS atrocities and memoirs by retired American marines of their lost comrades.

Posted in USA, VenezuelaComments Off on The Ever Dependable Bully on Embassy Row; Venezuela and Iraq Are No Longer Worlds Apart

Brutal Patterns in “United States Governance”


It is not difficult to find repeating patterns in United States governance internationally and domestically. Here are just a few:

  • Make decisions for other people, despite the lack of knowledge about them, or any lack of responsibility for making such decisions.
  • Never try diplomacy, when war will do.
  • Assure that all legislation benefits the rich white males.
  • Support  pro-US “self-determination” around the world, unless people have the temerity to select a leader or form of government the U.S. views as unacceptable.

We will take a few moments to look at some examples of each. These are only a random sample; it would take volumes of books to adequately cover these topics.

  • Making decisions the U.S. government has no business making:

No one should be surprised that groups composed of mainly men are passing abortion restrictions. People have wide and diverse views on abortion, to which they are all entitled. But there does seem to be something a bit odd about men having the final say. Shouldn’t women, the people who actually get pregnant, have a significant voice in abortion legislation?

But no, the paternalistic men who control Congress and most State Houses know best, even though what they say often makes no sense. Consider U.S. president Donald Trump proclaiming at a rally that women give birth, the baby is carefully wrapped in a blanket, while the child’s mother and her doctor determine whether or not to execute the baby. Fodder indeed for his rabid, right-wing, pseudo-Christian base, but without any connection to reality at all.

Let us look at a parallel situation, where decisions are made for people who have no input into them. The U.S. president is now ready, it seems, to reveal his ‘Deal of the Century’, to ‘resolve’ the main problem in the Middle East: Israel’s brutal and illegal occupation of Palestine. His arrogant and unqualified son-in-law and close advisor, Jared Kushner, has conferred closely with Israel’s leaders in developing the plan, but no one from the U.S. has bothered to solicit input from anyone in Palestine. But no matter: like men regulating women’s bodies, the mighty U.S. knows what’s best for Palestine. No wonder every Middle East expert has already declared the as-yet unannounced ‘Deal’ dead on arrival.

  • Never try diplomacy, when war will do.

Trump’s closest advisors are itching to invade Iran, something that even the bellicose president himself does not seem anxious to do. Could not diplomacy perhaps serve a role here? Trump expects his illegal and unjust sanctions to cause the Iranian government to come crawling to him (when pigs fly). Would not, perhaps, some positive gesture by the U.S. help things along? Iran has adhered strictly to the JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), which the U.S. violated. Would it not be possible that, should the U.S. decide to honor that agreement, as Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, did, the U.S. could then approach the Iranian government and say that there are, perhaps, one or two additional points it would like to negotiate?

Prior to the start of the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), it was said of President James Polk that he “held the niceties of diplomacy in contempt”. Could not the same be said about every U.S. president before and since? The concept of ‘gunboat diplomacy’ (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one), is the U.S. government’s idea of ‘diplomacy’. Putting the words ‘gunboat’ and ‘diplomacy’ together is as ridiculous as linking ‘democracy’ and ‘Israel’. The pairing of those words simply makes no sense.

  • Assure that all legislation benefits rich, white males.

Former Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, following the ‘landmark’ overhaul of the U.S. tax code, found himself ridiculed from coast to coast when he remarked that a teacher had told him that, with her new tax rate, she could now afford the $78.00  Costco membership (the teacher saw her take-home pay increase by $1.50 per week; the top 1% of wage earners received about 650 times that amount). That Ryan actually felt that that $1.50 weekly increase was something to crow about only shows how out of touch he was with the average U.S. citizen. And he is certainly not an anomaly. The tax law mainly benefits wealthy U.S. citizens who are overwhelmingly male and white.

  • Dubious support for self-determination.

How many nations’ governments has the U.S. decided to overthrow because those countries elected socialist governments, or a form of government that in some way displeased the U.S.? In each of the cases listed below, the people of each of those countries established a government of their own choosing. The U.S., either covertly through supporting terrorists, or overtly by bombing and invading the country, and/or the use of sanctions (or some combination of all of these), destroyed the government, thus thwarting self-determination. We will just look from 1950 to the present:

  • Albania
  • Palestine
  • Laos
  • Ghana
  • Indonesia
  • Democratic Republic of Congo
  • Brazil
  • Chile
  • Uruguay
  • Cambodia
  • Argentina
  • El Salvador
  • Nicaragua
  • Yugoslavia
  • Columbia
  • Venezuela
  • Syria
  • Libya
  • Yemen
  • Iran
  • Iraq
  • Afghanistan
  • Vietnam
  • Lebanon
  • Grenada
  • Panama

The people of these countries selected governments that were in some way displeasing to the United States, and so, instead of their duly-elected leaders, the U.S. installed brutal dictators. So much for self-determination.

This is a long-established pattern. In 1918, President Woodrow Wilson addressed a joint session of Congress, and said, in part, the following: “The Turkish portion of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.”[1] The following year, his legal counselor, David Hunter Miller, advised the president that “the rule of self-determination would prevent the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine.”[2] No, self-determination is only for those on whom the U.S. deigns to grant it.

President Donald Trump entered the White House with a promise to ‘Make America Great Again’. Where is this mythical greatness? A nation founded on genocide, built on slavery, and made powerful through brutal colonialism cannot return to a greatness it never had.

At this point, the best that can be hoped for is that, as other nations grow in military and economic power, the power and influence of the United States will decline. That will be advantageous for the entire planet.



Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.


[1] Michael S. Neiberg, The World War I Reader, (New York University Press, 2006),292.

[2] Ibid.

Posted in USAComments Off on Brutal Patterns in “United States Governance”

Turkey Shoots Itself in the Foot by Providing Syrian “Opposition” with Advanced Weapons


The Syrian government’s offensive in northwestern provinces of Hama and Lattakia that began almost a month ago fell short of expectations. Having briefly established control over a number of areas, the Syrian army units were forced to retreat due to fierce counter-attacks by the armed opposition factions. After that the campaign transformed into a prolonged stand-off framed by sporadic clashes and mutual shelling.

The robust defense of the opposition forces is rooted into two key factors. First, the armed factions that previously existed in a state of a permanent internal struggle managed to join their ranks and reinforced the front lines with additional troops. The attacks of the Syrian army are currently being repelled by fighters of the National Liberation Front (NLF) that is considered part of the moderate opposition, members of Al Qaeda’s affiliate in Syria Hayat Tahrir Al Sham (HTS) and Uighur jihadists from Islamic Turkistan Party.

Second, the militants benefit from the use of advanced weapons, primarily ATGMs, that give them the capability to target armored vehicles from a distance and stall offensive actions of the government forces.

Since the beginning of the escalation the opposition launched dozens of ATGMs against the army units. It would appear that a lack of munitions is not a concern for them as an urgent weapons supply line was opened by Turkey.

Last week, a Turkish convoy carrying a large batch of weapons and munitions arrived at the NLF-held town of Jabal Al Zawieh. In an interview to Reuters the NLF spokesman Naji Mustafa did not deny that the group received Turkish weapons.

Besides ATGMs, the armed opposition factions were also supplied with Turkish-made Panthera F9 armored personnel carriers. Pictures posted on social media demonstrate that at least three vehicles are in possession of the opposition.

In addition to that, members of Turkey-backed factions that are normally based in northern Aleppo were recently redeployed to the front lines in northern Hama.

Despite any short-term gains, by providing the opposition forces with weapons on a large scale Turkey risks to harm its own interests in Syria.

Taking into account that during the last few years the HTS extremists have effectively established dominance over Idlib, it’s not hard to predict that Turkey-supplied weapons will end up in the group’s hands. These developments would not only hinder peaceful settlement of the situation in Idlib that Turkey is a part of, but also threaten Ankara’s ambitions of strengthening it’s influence in northern Syria. Such repercussions must come as another warning to the Turkish authorities who risk to witness internal turmoil due to their ill-advised actions abroad.


Posted in Syria, TurkeyComments Off on Turkey Shoots Itself in the Foot by Providing Syrian “Opposition” with Advanced Weapons

War is a Racket. Major General Smedley Butler


Smedley Butler on Interventionism

Excerpt from a speech delivered in 1933, by Major General Smedley Butler, USMC.  

War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we’ll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.

I wouldn’t go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket. There isn’t a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its “finger men” to point out enemies, its “muscle men” to destroy enemies, its “brain men” to plan war preparations, and a “Big Boss” Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism.

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty-three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country’s most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle-man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.

I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.

Posted in USAComments Off on War is a Racket. Major General Smedley Butler

Unlawful Arrests of Venezuelan DC Embassy Protectors Symbolic of US Decadence


Activist embassy protectors were invited into Venezuela’s Washington diplomatic facility by its legitimate ruling authorities in Caracas.

According to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the premises of embassies, consulates, and other diplomatic facilities are inviolable territory — no one permitted inside without head of mission permission.

The illegal seizure of Venezuela’s DC embassy and arrest of activist protectors were unprecedented acts of US diplomatic piracy.

The Bolivarian Republic’s Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Ron denounced what happened, calling the Trump regime’s action a flagrant international law violation, adding:

“We do not authorize any of the coup leaders to enter our embassy in Washington DC. We call on the US government to respect the Vienna Conventions and sign a Protecting Power Agreement with us that would ensure the integrity of both our embassy in Washington, DC and the US Embassy in Caracas.”

Activists David Paul, Margaret Flowers, Kevin Zeese, and Professor of Anthropology Adrienne Pinewere unlawfully arrested and charged with “trespassing and interfering with the US Department of State’s protective functions (sic),” adding:

“The individuals were arrested on a criminal complaint charging them with a violation of 18 USC § 118, Interference with Protective Functions of the Department of State (sic), for knowingly and willingly obstructing, resisting, or interfering with a federal law enforcement agent engaged, within the United States (sic)…”

Activists charged face possible imprisonment for up to one year and a $1,000 fine — for lawfully defending the diplomatic property of the Bolivarian Republic, living in the embassy at great personal risk from April 10 until unlawfully arrested on May 16.

President Maduro, Foreign Minister Arreaza, and other Venezuelan officials thanked them for courageously supporting the rule of law the US repeatedly flouts.

On Friday, the four activists appeared before Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Conditionally released, their next court date is scheduled for June 12.

US attorney Danielle Rosborough is prosecuting the case for the Trump regime. Zeese said he and fellow activists intend “mak(ing) the case that there is a legitimate government, that the Vienna convention was violated, that this was an inappropriate and unlawful arrest,” expressing confidence of exoneration.

In Police State America, due process and equal justice under law don’t apply when US ruling authorities want their way enforced.

Still, Trump regime hardliners may not want the unlawful embassy takeover and arrests to become a rallying cry for greater activism against their anti-Bolivarian actions.

They may not want the incident to get greater publicity than already, perhaps agreeing to drop charges, subject to conditions imposed.

On Thursday in court, they were ordered to stay away from 10 Venezuelan diplomatic missions controlled by imposter Guaido’s US representatives.

This and other restrictions may be the price for avoiding imprisonment and a fine when prosecutorial proceedings begin.

Though given Trump regime toughness against Chelsea Manning, nothing is certain when the activists return to court in June.

Manning was reimprisoned last week for again invoking her constitutional right to remain silent, refusing to give grand jury testimony, saying she “cannot be coerced,” stressing:

“The government cannot build a prison bad enough, cannot create a system worse than the idea that I would ever change my principles,” adding she’d “rather starve to death” than violate them.

In response to the arrest of Venezuelan embassy protectors, Pine said the following:

“As a scholar and educator, there are times when standard tools of teaching, publishing, and public speaking aren’t enough. There are times when we need to put our bodies on the line” for justice, adding:

“A successful coup in Venezuela would have even broader consequences than those I have witnessed in Honduras. It would lead to civil war, and would most likely quickly escalate to a global conflict.”

“If, by trying to protect the Venezuela embassy, I can help my government from leading the world into this nightmare scenario, it will be well worth the potential damage to my career.”

Pine is a Honduran expert. Under US installed fascist rule, she witnessed firsthand what she called “invisible genocide” in the country.

She called the Honduran “militarized capitalism/neoliberal fascis(t)” model devastating for the rights, welfare, and dignity of its long-suffering people.

A state of siege exists in the country. Human and civil rights violations are horrific. Killings, beatings, disappearances, intimidation, and torture are commonplace.

Human rights workers, trade unionists, independent journalists, environmental activists, and other regime opponents are targeted for elimination.

What’s happening in Honduras and other nations run by US installed despots is coming to Venezuela if the Trump regime’s coup plot succeeds.

The same fate awaits Iran and other nations on the US target list, wanting tyranny replacing the sovereign rights of their people — what the scourge of imperialism is all about.

Posted in USA, VenezuelaComments Off on Unlawful Arrests of Venezuelan DC Embassy Protectors Symbolic of US Decadence

Joseph Goebbels’ 1945 Editorial on the Influence of Jewish Elites in the US, UK and Russia

Published on January 21, 1945 in Das Reich, the leading German weekly newspaper of that time.

One could not understand this war if one did not always keep in mind the fact that International Jewry stands behind all the unnatural forces that our united enemies use to attempt to deceive the world and keep humanity in the dark. It is, so to speak, the mortar that holds the enemy coalition firmly together, despite its differences of class, ideology, and interests. Capitalism and Bolshevism have the same Jewish roots, two branches of the same tree that in the end bear the same fruit. International Jewry uses both in its own way to suppress the nations and keep them in its service. How deep its influence on public opinion is in all the enemy countries and many neutral nations is plain to see that it may never be mentioned in newspapers, speeches, and radio broadcasts.

There is a law in the Soviet Union that punishes anti-Semitism — or in plain English, public education about the Jewish Question — by death. The expert in these matters is in no way surprised that a leading spokesman for the Kremlin said over the New Year that the Soviet Union would not rest until this law was valid throughout the world. In other words, the enemy clearly says that its goal in this war is to put the total domination of Jewry over the nations of the earth under legal protection, and to threaten even a discussion of this shameful attempt with the death penalty.

It is little different in the plutocratic nations. There the struggle against the impudent usurpation of the Jewish race is not punished by the executioner, but rather by death through economic and social boycott and by intellectual terror. This has the same effect in the end. Stalin, Churchill, and Roosevelt were made by Jewry. They enjoy its full support and reward it with their full protection. They present themselves in their speeches as upright men of civil courage, yet one never hears even a word against the Jews, even though there is growing hatred among their people as a result of this war, a hatred that is fully justified. Jewry is a taboo theme in the enemy countries. It stands outside every legal boundary and thus becomes the tyrant of its host peoples.

While enemy soldiers fight, bleed, and die at the front, the Jews make money from their sacrifice on the stock exchanges and black markets. If a brave man dares to step forward and accuse the Jews of their crimes, he will be mocked and spat on by their press, chased from his job or otherwise impoverished, and be brought into public contempt. Even that is apparently not enough for the Jews. They want to bring Soviet conditions to the whole world, giving Jewry absolute power and freedom from prosecution. He who objects or even debates the matter gets a bullet in the back of his head or an axe through his neck. There is no worse tyranny than this. This is the epitome of the public and secret disgrace that Jewry inflicts on the nations that deserve freedom.

That is all long behind us. Yet it still threatens us in the distance. We have, it is true, entirely broken the power of the Jews in the Reich, but they have not given up. They did not rest until they had mobilized the whole world against us. Since they could no longer conquer Germany from within, they want to try it from without. Every Russian, English, and American soldier is a mercenary of this world conspiracy of a parasitic race. Given the current state of the war, who could still believe that they are fighting and dying at the front for the national interests of their countries!

The nations want a decent peace, but the Jews are against it. They know that the end of the war would mean the dawning humanity’s knowledge of the unhealthy role that International Jewry played in preparing for and carrying out this war. They fear being unmasked, which has in fact become unavoidable and must inevitably come, just as the day follows the night. That explains their raging bursts of hatred against us, which are only the result of their fear and their feelings of inferiority. They are too eager, and that makes them suspicious. International Jewry will not succeed in turning this war to its advantage. Things are already too far along. The hour will come in which all the peoples of the earth will awake, and the Jews will be the victims. Here, too, things can only go so far.

It is an old, often-used method of International Jewry to discredit education and knowledge about its corrupting nature and drives, thereby depending on the weaknesses of those people who easily confuse cause with effect. The Jews are also masters at manipulating public opinion, which they dominate through their network of news agencies and press concerns that reaches throughout the world. The pitiful illusion of a free press is one of the methods they use to stupefy the publics of enemy lands. If the enemy press is as free as it pretends to be, let it take an open position, for or against, on the Jewish Question.

It will not do that because it cannot and may not do so. The Jews love to mock and criticize everything except themselves, although everyone knows that they are most in need of public criticism. This is where the so-called freedom of the press in enemy countries ends. Newspapers, parliaments, statesmen, and church leaders must be silent here. Crimes and vices, filth and corruption are covered by the blanket of love. The Jews have total control of public opinion in enemy countries, and he who has that is also master of all of public life. Only the nations that have to accept such a condition are to be pitied. The Jews mislead them into believing that the German nation is backward. Our alleged backwardness is actually proof of our progress. We have recognized the Jews as a national and international danger, and from this knowledge have drawn compelling conclusions. This German knowledge will become the knowledge of the world at the end of this war. We think it our primary duty to do everything in our power to make that happen.

Humanity would sink into eternal darkness, it would fall into a dull and primitive state, were the Jews to win this war. They are the incarnation of that destructive force that in these terrible years has guided the enemy war leadership in a fight against all that we see as noble, beautiful, and worth keeping. For that reason alone the Jews hate us. They despise our culture and learning, which they perceive as towering over their nomadic worldview. They fear our economic and social standards, which leave no room for their parasitic drives.

They are the enemy of our domestic order, which has excluded their anarchistic tendencies. Germany is the first nation in the world that is entirely free of the Jews. That is the prime cause of its political and economic balance. Since their expulsion from the German national body has made it impossible for them to shake this balance from within, they lead the nations they have deceived in battle against us from without. It is fine with them, in fact it is part of their plan, that Europe in the process will lose a large part of its cultural values. The Jews had no part in their creation. They do not understand them. A deep racial instinct tells them that since these heights of human creative activity are forever beyond their reach, they must attack them today with hatred. The day is not distant when the nations of Europe, yes, even those of the whole world, will shout: The Jews are guilty for all our misfortunes! They must be called to account, and soon and thoroughly!

International Jewry is ready with its alibi. Just as during the great reckoning in Germany, they will attempt to look innocent and say that one needs a scapegoat, and they are it. But that will no longer help them, just as it did not help them during the National Socialist revolution, The proof of their historical guilt, in details large and small, is so plain that it can no longer be denied even with the most clever lies and hypocrisy.

Who is it that drives the Russians, the English, and the Americans into battle and sacrifices huge numbers of human lives in a hopeless struggle against the German people? The Jews! Their newspapers and radio broadcasts spread the songs of war while the nations they have deceived are led to the slaughter. Who is it that invents new plans of hatred and destruction against us every day, making this war into a dreadful case of self-mutilation and self-destruction of European life and its economy, education and culture? The Jews! Who devised the unnatural marriage between England and the USA on one side and Bolshevism on the other, building it up and jealously ensuring its continuance?

Who covers the most perverse political situations with cynical hypocrisy from a trembling fear that a new way could lead the nations to realize the true causes of this terrible human catastrophe? The Jews, only the Jews! They are named Morgenthau and Lehmann and stand behind Roosevelt as a so-called brain trust. They are named Mechett and Sasoon and serve as Churchill’s moneybags and order givers. They are named Kaganovich and Ehrenburg and are Stalin’s pacesetters and intellectual spokesmen. Wherever you look, you see Jews. They march as political commissars behind the Red army and organize murder and terror in the areas conquered by the Soviets. They sit behind the lines in Paris and Brussels, Rome and Athens, and fashion their reins from the skin of the unhappy nations that have fallen under their power.

That is the truth. It can no longer be denied, particularly since in their drunken joy of power and victory the Jews have forgotten their ordinarily so carefully maintained reserve and now stand in the spotlight of public opinion. They no longer bother, apparently believing that it is no longer necessary, that their hour has come.

And this is their mistake, which they always make when think themselves near their great goal of anonymous world domination. Throughout the history of the nations, whenever this tragic situation developed, a good providence saw to it that the Jews themselves became the gravediggers of their own hopes. They did not destroy the healthy peoples, but rather the sting of their parasitic effects brought the realization of the looming danger to the forefront and led to the greatest sacrifices to overcome it. At a certain point, they become that power that always wants evil but creates good. It will be that way this time, too.

The fact that the German nation was the first on earth to recognize this danger and expel it from its organism is proof of its healthy instincts. It therefore became the leader of a world struggle whose results will determine the fate and the future of International Jewry. We view with complete calm the wild Old Testament tirades of hatred and revenge of Jews throughout the world against us. They are only proof that we are on the right path. They cannot unsettle us. We gaze on them with sovereign contempt and remember that these outbursts of hate and revenge were everyday events for us in Germany until that fateful day for International Jewry, 30 January 1933, when the world revolution against the Jews that threatened them not only Germany, but all the other nations, began.

It will not cease before it has reached its goal. The truth cannot be stopped by lies or force. It will get through. The Jews will meet their Cannae at the end of this war. Not Europe, but rather they will lose. They may laugh at this prophecy today, but they have laughed so often in the past, and almost as often they stopped laughing sooner or later. Not only do we know precisely what we want, we also know precisely what we do not want. The deceived nations of the Earth may still lack the knowledge they need, but we will bring it to them. How will the Jews stop that in the long run? They believe their power rests on sure foundations, but it stands on feet of clay.

One hard blow and it will collapse, burying the creators of the misfortunes of the world in its ruins.

Go to the Goebbels Page.

Go to the 1933-1945 Page.

Go to the German Propaganda Archive Home Page.

Posted in GermanyComments Off on Joseph Goebbels’ 1945 Editorial on the Influence of Jewish Elites in the US, UK and Russia

Shoah’s pages


May 2019
« Apr   Jun »