The American fascists are most easily recognized by their deliberate
perversion of truth and fact. Their newspapers and propaganda carefully
cultivate every fissure of disunity, every crack in the common front against
fascism. ~ Henry A. Wallace
The lunatics surrounding Trump have been embedded in America’s
foreign policy apparatus for a very long, long time. The same foreign policy blunders are repeated
in administration after administration regardless of which party is in power
for there is only one party, the war party. Donald Trump was elected president in 2016
after he took on the empire’s endless wars for profit, promising to end the
stupid, pointless, costly and deadly wars.
Trump hasn’t been able to overcome the lunatics in the war
party and their dual citizenship “experts” in the State Department,
Intelligence agencies and a myriad of agencies who have become permanent
fixtures in America’s foreign policy asylum.
Barack Obama was Empire’s candidate in 2008. John McCain’s candidacy was for show only as
both parties backed Obama who had a long family history of serving empire and had
deep ties to the CIA. Obama immediately
refused to take public financing, something no candidate has done since the
Watergate scandal revealed the lawlessness of private financing of presidential
campaigns. Obama soon received a billion dollars in
campaign funds, over $300 million in October of 2008 in small donations of $200
or less in prepaid credit cards.
Obama’s State Department and foreign policy team was
embedded with many of the same lunatics that were brought in during the George
W. Bush Administration. During the 2016
presidential campaign Donald Trump was relentlessly attacked and accused of
being a “Russian agent” largely for debunking the Empire approved narrative of
Russia being an eminent threat to America.
Tulsi Gabbard is the new anti-endless war candidate. During the Democratic Party’s primary debate
sponsored by Deep State handmaiden CNN, Tulsi Gabbard took on the Empire’s
darling Kamala Harris and eviscerated her revealing Harris’ true record of
service to the Deep State.
From Tom
Luongo at Strategic Culture:
Excerpt:
The Empire Is Coming for Tulsi Gabbard
The second debate among Democratic
hopefuls was notable for two things. The lack of common decency of most of them
and Tulsi Gabbard’s immense,
career-ending attack on Kamala Harris’ (D-Deep State) record as an Attorney
General in California.
Harris came out of the first debate the clear winner and Gabbard
cut her down to size with one of the single best minutes of political
television since Donald Trump told Hillary Clinton, “Because you’d be in
jail.”
Gabbard’s takedown of Harris was so
spot on and her closing statement about
the irresponsible nature of the Trump Administration’s foreign policy was so
powerful she had to be actively suppressed on Twitter. And, within minutes of the debate ending
the media and the political machines
moved into overdrive to smear her as a Russian agent, an Assad apologist and a
favorite of the alt-right.
Now, folks, let me tell you
something. I write and talk about Gabbard a lot and those to the right of me
are really skeptical of her being some kind of plant for Israel or the
establishment. If she were truly one of those she wouldn’t have been polling at
1% going into that debate. She would
have been promoted as Harris’ strongest competition and served up for Harris to
co-opt.
That is not what happened.
No, the fact that Gabbard is being smeared as viciously and
baselessly as she is by all the right people on both the left and the right
is all the proof you need that she is 1) the real deal and 2) they are scared
of her. When Lindsey Graham tweets about
Tulsi Gabbard twice after a debate, when the Washington Post neocons like Josh
Rogin are attacking her, you know
she’s got their panties in a bunch.
You expect it from the Harris camp,
obviously. But when it comes directly from people like Navid Jamali (double
agent, navy intelligence, MSNBC contributor) you know the empire is beginning to get worried…
In the past week she’s destroyed
Kamala Harris on national TV, sued
Google for electioneering and signed onto Thomas Massie’s (R-KY) bill to audit
the Federal Reserve. What does she do next week, end the Drug War?
Tulsi Gabbard is admittedly a work
in progress. But what I see in her is
something that has the potential to be very special. She’s young enough to
be both passionately brave and willing to go where the truth takes her. And that
truth has taken her where Democrats have feared to tread for more than forty
years: the US Empire.
The entire time I was growing up
the prevailing wisdom was Social Security was the third rail of US politics.
That, like so many other pearls of wisdom, was nonsense. The true third rail of US
politics is empire. Any candidate
that is publicly against the empire is the enemy of not only the state, it’s
quislings in the media, the corporations who profit from it and the party
machines of both the GOP and the DNC.
That is Gabbard’s crime. And
it’s the only crime that matters.
When the Empire is on the line, left and right in the US close ranks
and unite against the threat. The good news is that all they have is their
pathetic Russia bashing and appeals to their authority on foreign policy. Foreign
policy, by the way, that most people in America, frankly, despise…
If she doesn’t begin climbing in
the polls then the Democrats are lost. They will have signed onto crazy
Progressivism and more Empire in their lust to destroy Donald Trump. But
they will lose because only a principled anti-imperialist like Gabbard can push
Trump back to his days when he was the outsider in the GOP debates, railing
against our stupid foreign policy.
No one else in the field would be remotely credible on this point.
It’s the area where Trump is the weakest. He’s not weak on women’s rights,
racism, gay rights or any of the rest of the idiotic identity politics of the
rest of the Democratic field.
He’s weakest on the one issue that got him elected in the first place,
foreign policy. Hillary was the candidate of Empire. Trump was not. It’s why we saw an international
conspiracy formed to destroy him and his presidency. Now that same apparatus is mobilized
against Tulsi Gabbard.
That’s good. As a solider she knows that when you’re taking flak you are over your
target. Now let’s hope she’s capable of sustaining herself to push this
election cycle away from the insanity the elite want to distract us with and
make it about the only thing keeping the
world from healing, ending the empire of chaos.
Unfortunately the debates are controlled by the corrupt
Democratic National Committee who controls which candidates are allowed on the
stage for the debates. You can be sure
Tulsi Gabbard will have a tough time qualifying for the September debates after
her truth telling performance. No doubt
the candidate that will capture the nomination will be a compliant Deep State lackey
that will continue on with Empire just as Obama did. From Paul Craig Roberts:
Excerpt:
Obama: Front Man for Washington’s Imperialism
Clarity Press is a good publisher
for authors willing to provide real information in place of the officially
sanctioned controlled explanations of our time. A current example is Jeremy
Kuzmarov’s assessment of Obama, Obama’s Unending Wars. The forty-fourth president comes across as a successful front man for
corporate rule and Washington’s imperialism.
Obama was the “drone king” whose regime bombed 7 Muslim countries,
overthrew the democratic government in Hondurus, overthrew and murdered
Gaddafi, tried to do the same thing to
Assad in Syria, overthrew the democratic government in Ukraine and demonized
Russia and the Russian president, tried
to undermine and overthrow the democratically elected Latin American presidents
Morales, Chavez, and Ortega, constantly lied through his teeth, and met with the approval of the
military/security complex and global capitalists.
Topping off these criminal events, Obama’s regime adopted the policy of
murdering US citizens on suspicion alone without due process of law. Execution
orders were issued every Tuesday as Obama with CIA director John Brennan at his
side chose presumed terrorists from mug
shots and biographies prepared by no one knows who. “Some were just teenagers
like a young girl who looked ‘less than her seventeen years.’”
In the name of preventing atrocities, the Obama regime committed mass
atrocities. One consequence was a massive flow of refugees into the US and its
empire of peoples who have every reason to hate Americans, Europeans,
Australians and Canadians for sending soldiers and bombs to destroy
their homes and murder and maim their family members.
Obama was the perfect front
man for a cruel empire. Being partly black, he could be presented
as humanitarian and considerate of the dark-skinned peoples the George W. Bush
regime had ground under the American boot. Being a one-term senator from Illinois, he
had no following and no independent political base, and thus had no ability to
stand up to powerful organized interest groups. Installed in office, he delivered the violence
and mayhem that the ruling oligarchs wanted as they destroyed independent
governments, controlled oil flows, and
sought to establish Washington’s and Israel’s hegemony over the Middle East.
Kuzmarov’s report on Obama fits the
model of Washington intervention that many have reported. For example, General Smedley Butler: John Perkins, Confessions of an Economic Hit
Man, and Stephen Kinzer, The Brothers. The difference is that Obama was very much
aware that he was fronting for the ruling establishment, whereas General
Butler initially thought he was defending American interests rather than the
interests of the New York banks and United Fruit Company. Perkins thought he was helping the countries
targeted by the projects for which he worked, and the Dulles brothers operated
independently of presidents. Obama knew who he was serving and suffered
no self-deception.
Donald Trump attempted to reassert the independence of the presidency
and found himself framed on Russiagate charges. It will be interesting to see if the authority
of the office can be restored or whether henceforth the president will be a
puppet of the Establishment.
The two parties are very good at gaming the system, and they
were irate when Trump beat them to become the Republican candidate, then
president. Trump is anything but
compliant.
The lunatics in America’s foreign policy asylum have been
gunning for war with Iran for ages, Ronald Reagan managed to avert war after
the 1983 false flag attack in Lebanon that killed 241 American military
personnel. From Checkpoint Asia:
Excerpt:
1984: The Year America Didn’t Go to War With Iran After a Civil War in
Reagan Admin
As tensions between the U.S. and
Iran spiked this last June, Maureen Dowd, the imitable New York Times columnist, wrote that “the man” standing between the
U.S. and another war in the Middle East wasn’t a part of the Trump
Administration’s foreign policy team, but Fox
News television host Tucker Carlson.
Disturbed that Mr. Trump’s actions on Iran might touch off a nasty
bloodletting, Carlson (as we are reliably told), privately advised the
president against hitting Iran. And so a popular (if slightly exaggerated)
fable has taken hold: surrounded by a gaggle of his own experts, and with U.S.
bombers poised to destroy Iranian military assets, Trump decided to reject
their advice, and listen to Carlson. The bombers were recalled, war averted—and
the president returned to his Twitter account. Phew.
Dowd, and many of the rest of us,
were gobsmacked. While decrying the lights-camera-action society that has
brought us to this pass (a talking heads foreign policy is, it seems, the
predictable result of a talking heads culture), Dowd ended her column thusly:
“Carlson is pointing out something that Trump needs to hear,” she wrote. “The very people — in some cases, literally
the same people who lured us into the Iraq quagmire 16 years ago — are
demanding a new war, this one with Iran.”
Of course, this wasn’t the first
time that America actually chose not to go to war, but the decision is rare enough that pointing out when it has happened
before, and why, is worth noting —particularly as it involves Iran.
As debates go, this was a
take-no-prisoners donnybrook: on the one side was the outwardly soft-spoken and
professorial Secretary of State George
Shultz (in fact, he was a nasty infighter whose sneering personnel evaluations
could end careers), and on the other Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, a
craggy and confrontational workaholic beloved by the military’s most senior
leaders. Even before the dust had settled in Beirut, Shultz and
Weinberger were weighing in with Reagan on what to do about it—-with Shultz arguing for a full military
response, while a shrugging and seemingly detached Weinberger dragged his feet.
The Secretary of Defense had opposed the deployment of the Marines to
begin with, and had the support of the military. Colin Powell, Weinberger’s senior military assistant, spoke for many
of the military’s leaders when he described the Lebanon deployment “goofy from
the beginning.”
For Shultz, however, revisiting the
deployment decision was a waste of time. In
a series of knock-down-drag-outs that pitted him against Weinberger, the
Secretary of State argued that “American credibility” (that old standby), was
being tested and that, therefore, the deaths of 241 U.S. Marines was cause
enough for a military escalation.
Weinberger disagreed: “retaliation against who?” he asked. Slow-rolling
the president, he argued that the U.S. needed better intelligence before
deciding who to punish. Weinberger was adamant: the U.S. had just left
one unwinnable conflict (in Vietnam), and shouldn’t be so quick to start
another. He dug in.
On November 17, in an incident that
remains controversial, Weinberger
seems to have actually disregarded a presidential order for a retaliation.
The operation, against Iranian-linked military assets, never came off — though
it remains unclear, more than thirty years later, just who was responsible for
stopping the operation. Reagan’s
national security adviser, Robert McFarlane, was livid — shouting at Weinberger
during a telephone conversation that he’d ignored the president’s direct order.
Weinberger disagreed: he’d received no such order, he calmly explained.
Less than one month later, the
debate between Shultz and Weinberger had become so ugly, so personal, that the
Defense Secretary was openly mocking Secretary of State Shultz’s original
support for the U.S. deployment. During
one White House meeting, Weinberger implied that if Shultz had not done so, the
Marines would still be alive.
Shultz turned on him: “Never let me
ask for the Marines again,” he said, disdainfully. “If I do, shoot me.”
Weinberger, it seems, was willing to accommodate him: “It is easy to kill people,
and that might make some people feel good, but military force must have a
purpose, to achieve some end,” he later, pointedly, explained. “We never had the fidelity on who
perpetrated that horrendous act.”
The Shultz-Weinberger tilt dragged
on until February of 1984, when Reagan decided to “redeploy” the Marines to
U.S. ships on station in the Mediterranean.
The “redeployment” was seen by Shultz as an ignominious retreat, a sign of
American weakness. But, as capably rendered by Marine Colonel and historian
David Crist in The Twilight War, that’s not the way the Pentagon viewed it.
Crist quotes senior defense
official Noel Koch as defending the redeployment during a White House meeting
that included Reagan’s top advisers—including Shultz. The problem with American policy in the Middle East, Koch implied, was
American hypocrisy—and our selective use of the word terrorism: when our
friends plant bombs we say it’s because they’re defending our values, but when
our enemies do it, it’s terrorism.
Shultz snapped: “I couldn’t
disagree more,” he responded. The
problem wasn’t America’s hypocrisy, it was its lack of will, its weakness—which
only encouraged Iran and other terrorists. If that debate sounds familiar, it’s because it is; it rages, on and
off, to this day.
In one sense, the Shultz-Weinberger
clash should not come as a surprise. While
Weinberger was a Harvard-educated lawyer, his formative experience came in World
War II, where he served as an infantry officer during the 1942 Battle of Buna—a
fetid, leech-infested Japanese base on the rim of northern New Guinea. For
those who survived, including Weinberger, the swamp-slogging battle was an
unrelenting nightmare: at its end, the Japanese resorted to cannibalism and
used the bodies of the dead to reinforce their defenses.
Though Weinberger rarely talked
about Buna, the experience stayed with him. During an interview I conducted
with him when he was defense secretary, he nearly laughed me out of the room
when I suggested that the military budget increases he proposed made war more
likely. “You don’t get it,” he said.
“We’re not buying more guns because we intend to use them, we’re buying more
guns so we don’t have to.”
Weinberger’s favorite military
officer, J.C.S. Chairman John Vessey, agreed. Vessey was no shrinking violet. While Weinberger was battling Shultz,
Vessey took on Robert McFarlane, Reagan’s interventionist National Security
Advisor. Lashing out at the perpetrators of the Marine Barracks bombing,
Vessey believed, was unbecoming of a great power. It was “beneath our dignity.”
He would know.
Like Weinberger, Vessey joined the Army as a private, but was made an
officer during the invasion of Anzio, the beachhead on Italy’s western coast
where the German Wehrmacht battled the Americans to a standstill. Like Buna,
Anzio was a charnel house and Vessey was lucky to survive. From Anzio, Vessey
made his way to the top of the heap — from Private to General, a nearly
unprecedented feat…
Of course, there are any number of
obvious differences between that time and this one, between the Reagan White
House and the Trump Administration—not the least of which is that Weinberger and Shultz were not only
experienced and sometimes exasperating infighters, but were acknowledged
foreign policy giants. As was John Vessey. Then too, and crucially, Weinberger
and Vessey had “seen the elephant”– as the military saying has it — at Buna
and Anzio.
That’s not true for Mike Pompeo, or
for Mark Esper, the newly designated Secretary of Defense; and it’s certainly
not true for John Bolton who, unlike Robert “Bud” McFarlane (who served two
tours as a Marine in Vietnam), has never heard a shot fired in anger.
Seeing the elephant matters—and in
the recent contretemps over hitting Iran, it probably mattered a great deal.
For while Tucker Carlson has entered Washington lore as the man who stopped a
war, the thumb-on-the-scales in the
recent debate belongs to Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, and the Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff who, like John Vessey, slow-rolled the bureaucracy, and
the president. Dunford has a history of this. A can-do
Marine, Dunford has not only seen the elephant (and many of them, as it were,
in Iraq), is also a first-class student in the ways of Washington.
When Dunford disagrees with a policy, as a civilian Pentagon official
described it to me, “he floods the zone”—- providing volumes of facts and
figures that are as likely to delay as inform. He did that, famously, with
John McCain, when the two crossed swords over Afghanistan policy during the
Obama years. And he did that again, back in June, when Donald Trump wanted to
hit back against Iran
“He told the president what would be involved, what it would cost, how
Iran might strike back and how many people would die,” this Pentagon
official said. “He just laid it out. It was pretty grim, but it’s what made the
difference.”
That sounds right, for the one
comparison that rings true is the one that recognizes in Joe Dunford what was
true for John Vessey. For both of them,
striking back, killing who you can because you can (and simply to assuage your
own anger) is not only “beneath our dignity”—it’s a signpost on the road to
unwinnable wars.
Thank God for the military men who have “seen the elephant”
to drag their feet and tamp down the intelligence and national security team of
chicken hawks who lust for war. The
worst part is that they have teamed up with British intelligence to stoke the
fires for war with Iran and with the weak leadership in Britain no telling what
the outcome will be. From CheckpointAsia:
Excerpt:
How Trump’s Arch-Hawk Lured Britain Into a Dangerous Trap to Escalate
the Crisis With Iran
Not that it has learned any
lessons. Without knowing what that may entail, London keeps on blindly dancing to the beat of Bolton’s war drums
John Bolton, White House national
security adviser and notorious Iraq-era hawk, is a man on a mission. Given
broad latitude over policy by Donald Trump, he is widely held to be driving the
US confrontation with Iran. And in his
passionate bid to tame Tehran, Bolton cares little who gets hurt – even if
collateral damage includes a close ally such as Britain.
So when Bolton heard British Royal
Marines had seized an Iranian oil tanker off Gibraltar on America’s
Independence Day, his joy was
unconfined. “Excellent news: UK has detained the supertanker Grace I laden with
Iranian oil bound for Syria in violation of EU sanctions,” he exulted on
Twitter.
Bolton’s delighted reaction
suggested the seizure was a surprise. But
accumulating evidence suggests the opposite is true, and that Bolton’s national
security team was directly involved in manufacturing the Gibraltar incident.
The suspicion is that Conservative politicians, distracted by picking a new
prime minister, jockeying for power, and preoccupied with Brexit, stumbled into
an American trap.
In short, it seems, Britain
was set up.
The consequences of the Gibraltar
affair are only now becoming clear. The seizure of Grace I led directly to
Friday’s capture by Iran’s Revolutionary Guards of a British tanker, the Stena
Impero, in the Strait of Hormuz. Although
it has not made an explicit link, Iran had previously vowed to retaliate for
Britain’s Gibraltar “piracy”. Now it has its revenge.
As a result, Britain has been plunged into the middle of an international crisis it
is ill-prepared to deal with. THE TIMING COULD HARDLY BE WORSE. An untested
prime minister, presumably Boris Johnson, will enter Downing Street this week. Britain is on the brink of a disorderly
exit from the EU, alienating its closest European partners. And its
relationship with Trump’s America is uniquely strained.
Much of this angst could have been avoided. Britain opposed Trump’s
decision to quit the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran, the trigger for today’s
crisis. It has watched with alarm as the
Trump-Bolton policy of “maximum pressure”, involving punitive sanctions and an
oil embargo, has radicalised the most moderate Iranians.
Yet even as Britain backed EU attempts
to rescue the nuclear deal, Theresa May
and Jeremy Hunt, foreign secretary, tried to have it both ways – to keep
Trump sweet. They publicly supported Washington’s complaints about Iran’s
“destabilising” regional activities and missile programme, and berated Iran
when it bypassed agreed nuclear curbs.
Crucially, the government failed to
significantly beef up protection for British-flagged vessels transiting the
Gulf after attacks in May and June. This
was partly because a depleted Royal Navy lacks capacity to mount adequate
patrols. But it was also because officials feared that by raising its
military profile, Britain could be sucked into armed conflict with Iran.
For Bolton, however, drawing Britain unambiguously in on America’s side
was a desirable outcome. So when US spy satellites, tasked with helping
block Iranian oil exports in line with Trump’s global embargo, began to track
Grace I on its way, allegedly, to Syria, Bolton saw an opportunity.
The Spanish newspaper, El Pais,
citing official sources, takes up the story:
“The Grace 1, which flies a Panamanian flag, had been under surveillance by US
satellites since April, when it was anchored off Iran. The supertanker,
full to the brim with crude oil, was too big for the Suez Canal, and so it sailed
around the Cape of Good Hope before heading for the Mediterranean.
“According to the US intelligence
services, it was headed for the Syrian oil refinery of Banias. Washington
advised Madrid of the arrival of the supertanker 48 hours ahead of time, and the
Spanish navy followed its passage through the Strait of Gibraltar. It was expected to cross via international
waters, as many Iranian vessels do without being stopped.”
Although Spanish officials,
speaking after the event, said they would have intercepted the ship “if we had
had the information and the opportunity”, Spain
took no action at the time. But Bolton, in any case, was not relying on Madrid.
The US had already tipped off Britain. On 4 July, after Grace I entered
British-Gibraltar territorial waters, the fateful order was issued in London –
it is not known by whom – and 30 marines stormed aboard.
Iran’s reaction was immediate and furious. It claimed Britain had acted illegally because the EU embargo on oil
supplies to Syria, which Hunt claimed to be upholding, applied only to EU
states and not to third countries such as Iran. In any case, Tehran
said, the ship’s destination was not Syria.
Iran’s outrage was shared, to a
lesser degree, by Josep Borrell, Spain’s socialist foreign minister. Borrell
resented the British incursion into Gibraltar’s territorial waters, which
Madrid does not recognise. He also
appears to have been annoyed that Spain was drawn in – in Tehran, the
Spanish ambassador had been summonsed by the foreign ministry to explain Madrid’s
role. His reaction was to distance Spain from the affair.
The Iranian tanker had been seized “following a request from the United
States to the United Kingdom,” he said. And even though Britain was
supposedly upholding EU regulations, the External Action Service, the EU’s foreign policy arm, has remained
silent throughout.
Iran’s retaliation in snatching the Stena Impero has further exposed
Britain’s diplomatic isolation and its military and economic vulnerability.
The government has advised British ships to avoid the Strait of Hormuz, an
admission it cannot protect them. But between 15 and 30 British-flagged tankers
transit the strait each day. If trade is
halted, the impact on energy prices may be severe.
Hunt’s appeal for
international support for Britain has so far fallen on deaf ears, France
and Germany excepted. China, Japan and other countries that rely on oil from
the Gulf show no sign of helping. The
US plan for a multinational coalition to protect Gulf shipping has few takers.
Meanwhile, Trump’s promise to back Britain has scant practical value – and
carries inherent dangers.
The Bolton gambit succeeded.
Despite its misgivings, Britain has been co-opted on to the front line of
Washington’s confrontation with Iran. The process of polarisation, on both
sides, is accelerating. The nuclear deal is closer to total collapse. And by threatening Iran with “serious
consequences”, without knowing what that may entail, Britain blindly dances to
the beat of Bolton’s war drums.
My, my, my lie with dogs and wake up with fleas. Britain was very stupid to cozy up to Bolton
and the other lunatics who have taken over America’s foreign policy
asylum. But then Britain has been part
and parcel to the lunatics’ foreign policy blunders for a long time now. Remember Tony Blair and his “sexed up WMD
intel” that led to the Iraq War? But it
seems that “special relationship” is showing signs of strain. From Strategic Culture:
Excerpt:
The ‘Special Relationship’ Is
Collapsing… and That’s a Good Thing
British Ambassador Kim Darroch’s return to London from his failed
mission in America is being hailed by many naïve commentators as yet
another proof that President Trump is a crazed ego-maniac who cannot take
criticism from a seasoned professional diplomat.
During the weeks since the “Darroch
memo” scandal erupted, mainstream media has totally mis-diagnosed the nature of
the breakdown in US-British relations, and has brushed over the most relevant
evidence that has been brought to light by Darroch’s cables. This spinning of the narrative has
made it falsely appear that the Ambassador merely criticized the President as
“clumsy, diplomatically inept, unpredictable and dysfunctional” and was thus unjustly attacked by the
President causing the poor diplomate to resign saying “the current
situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like.”
Former British Foreign Secretary
Jeremy Hunt went so far as to say that Darroch was “the best of Britain” and
encouraged all diplomats to continue to “speak truth to power.” International press on both sides of the
ocean followed suit portraying Darroch as a hero among men.
Hog wash.
The reality is that Darroch’s messages to the British Foreign
Office go much deeper and reveal something very ugly that challenges the
deepest assumptions about recent history and modern geopolitics.
Sir Darroch and Britain’s Invisible
Hand Exposed
Sir Darroch, (Knight Commander of
St. Michael and St. George) is not your typical British diplomat. The Knight made a name for himself as a
leading agent of Tony Blair while acting as Ambassador to the European Union
from 2007-2011 in an effort to win international support for a regime change
operation against Iran, Syria and Libya.
Blair and the highest levels of the British oligarchy had managed
America as its “dumb giant” throughout the entire post-9/11 regime change
program on the Middle East. While many have labelled this policy as
“American”, we shall come to see that it
was merely the carrying out of the “Blair Doctrine” announced in the 1999
speech in Chicago calling for a post-nation state (post-Westphalian) world
order.
It is important to remind ourselves that the dodgy WMD dossier had been
crafted by the British Foreign Office before being used by neo con hawks such
as John Bolton and Cheney as justification to blow up Iraq in 2003.
It
was also the earlier Anglo-Saudi sponsored BAE black operation run by Prince
Bandar bin Sultan which funded and directed 9/11 earlier. As US Ambassador beginning in January 2016,
Sir Darroch was instrumental in vetting Christopher Steele as “absolutely
legit”. Steele’s “dodgy dossier” on Trump was used to justify the greatest
witch hunt of a sitting President in history.
When viewed in the same light as the British-directed Russia-gating of
the President, these memos shed valuable light upon the Byzantine methods
which British intelligence has used to conduct its subtle manipulation of
America for a very long time.
Trump Whisperers and Britain’s
Other Tools
In his memos, Sir Darroch called for “flooding the zone” with Trump whisperers who
can influence the President’s perceptions of the world and push him towards the
British agenda on issues such as de-carbonization, Free Trade, and
war with Iran.
Sir Darroch said to his superiors that “we have spent years building the
relationships; they are the gatekeepers… the individuals we rely upon to ensure
the U.K. voice is heard in the West Wing.” Who are these voices who been
built up over years? National Security Advisor John Bolton is a long-standing visitor to the British embassy and
former Chief of Staff John Kelly has had regular early morning breakfast dates.
A Washington Post assessment of July 8th described Darroch’s “coterie- including Kellyanne Conway, Stephen Miller, Mick
Mulvaney, Sarah Sanders and Trump ally Chris Ruddy” who have met at the embassy
and “share about the President and his decision-making.”
Darroch also revealed that Trump’s resistance to the British position
on war with Iran was not acceptable when the President chose to cancel an
attack on Iran on June 21st after an America drone was shot down.
Moments after Trump’s cancellation of the attack, a Darroch memo complained
that Trump was “incoherent and chaotic” and that Trump could fall into line
once he was “surrounded by a more hawkish group of advisers… Just
one more Iranian attack somewhere in the region could trigger yet another Trump
U-turn.”
Only two weeks after sending this cable, Britain orchestrated a crisis
by seizing an Iranian ship on July 5th which snowballed into an Iranian
seizure of a British tanker and greater danger of confrontation amongst the
NATO axis and Iran.
The biggest confusion spread by the controllers of “officially accepted
narratives” when assessing such things as 9-11, regime change wars, or the
current debacle in Iran is located in a
sleight of hand that asserts that America leads the British in the Special
relationship. This belief in an “American empire” betrays a profound
misunderstanding of history.
The Fallacious History of
US-British “Friendship”
For much of the 19th century,
Americans generally had a better understanding of their anti-colonial origins
than many do today. Even though the last official war fought between Britain
and America was in 1812-15, the British failure to destroy America militarily
caused British foreign policy to re-focus its efforts on undermining America
from within… generally through the dual
infestation of British-sponsored ideologies contaminating the American school
system on the one hand and British banking practices of Wall Street’s ruling class
on the other.
This attack from within required
more patience, but was more successful and led to the near collapse of America
in 1860 when Lord Palmerston quickly recognized the Southern slave power’s call
for independence from the Union. Britain’s
covert military support for the Confederate cause was exposed by the end of
that war and led to Britain’s payment of $15 million settlement to America as
part of the Alabama Claims in 1872.
As the informative 2010 Lpac
documentary “The Special Relationship is
for Traitors” showcased, during the early 20th century leading American
military figures like Brig. General
Billy Mitchell understood Britain’s role in supporting the Confederacy and
Britain’s manipulation of global wars.
General Mitchell fought against the
“special relationship” tooth and nail and led the military to create “War Plan
Red and War Plan Orange” to defeat Britain under the context of an eventual war
between the English-speaking powers. These plans were made US military doctrine
in 1930 and were only taken off the
books when America decided it was more important to put down London’s Fascist
Frankenstein threat than fight Britain head on in WWII.
The Rhodes Scholars Take Over
Before the “Churchill gang” (that Stalin accused of poisoning FDR)
could take control of America, Franklin Roosevelt described his understanding
of the British influence over the US State Department when he told his son:
“You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to
conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of
those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think.
They should be working for Winston.
As a matter of fact, a lot of the
time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any
number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign
policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!” I was told… six years ago, to clean out
that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office….”
With FDR’s death, these British
operatives took over American foreign policy and wiped out the remaining
pro-American forces in the State Department, disbanding the OSS and
reconstituting America’s intelligence services as the MI6-modelled CIA in 1948.
In 1951, the Chicago Tribune
published a incredible series of exposes by journalist William Fulton
documenting the cancerous penetration of
hundreds of Oxford Trained Rhodes Scholars who had taken over American foreign
policy and were directing America into a third world war. On July 14, 1951
Fulton wrote: “Key positions in the United States department of state are held
by a network of American Rhodes scholars.
Rhodes scholars are men who obtained supplemental education and
indoctrination at Oxford University in England with the bills paid by the
estate of Cecil John Rhodes, British empire builder. Rhodes wrote about his
ambition to cause “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an
integral part of the British empire.” The late diamond and gold mining tycoon
aimed at a world federation dominated by Anglo-Saxons.”
Sir Kissinger Opens the Floodgates
A star pupil of William Yandall
Elliot (a leading Rhodes Scholar based out of Harvard) was a young
misanthropic German named Henry Kissinger.
A decade before becoming a Knight
of the British Empire, Kissinger gave a remarkable speech at a May 1981 event
on British-American relations at London’s Royal Institute for International
Affairs. At this event Kissinger
described the opposing world views of Churchill vs. Roosevelt, gushing that he
much preferred the post-war view of Churchill.
He then described his time working
for the British Foreign Office as Secretary of State saying: “The British were
so matter-of-factly helpful that they
became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably
never practiced between sovereign nations… In my White House incarnation then, I
kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I
did the American State Department… It was symptomatic”.
As Kissinger spoke these words, another anglophile traitor was being
installed as Vice-President of America. George Bush Sr. was not only the son of
a Nazi-funding Wall Street tool and former director of the CIA, but was
also made a Knight of the Grand Cross and Order of Bath by Queen Elizabeth in
1993. The most disasterous foreign
policies enacted under Reagan’s leadership during the 1980s can be traced
directly back to these two figures.
The Potential Revival of the ‘Real’
America
Think what you may of Donald Trump.
The fact is, that he has not started any wars which a Jeb or Hillary were happy
to launch. He has reversed a regime
change program active since 9/11. He has fought to put America into a cooperative
position with Russia. He has undone decades of WTO/City of London free trade.
He has called for rebuilding productive industries following through by
reviving the protective tariff.
To top it off, he has been at
war with the British-directed deep state for over three years and survived.
Now that Bolton has been outed as an ally of Sir Darroch, there is an open
acknowledgement that Trump is gearing
up to replace the neocon traitor as we speak. Trump has many problems but being
a British asset is not one of them.
If you’ve made it this far, you
shouldn’t be surprised that the collapse of the special relationship is a very
good thing, since America now has a real
opportunity to rediscover its true anti-imperial nature by working with Russia,
China, India and other nations under the new cooperative framework of space
exploration and the Belt and Road Initiative.
Wow, that explains a lot about what has been going on in
America for a long, long time. Tulsi
Gabbard understands this better than anyone.
Gabbard in her recent CNN sponsored debate explained that the Trump
Administrations policies are supporting terrorism.
Excerpt:
Tulsi Gabbard is right. Trump supports al-Qaeda…just like Obama did
Like Trump’s Saudi Arabia policy,
Obama inadvertently supported terrorists in the name of aiding allies
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard made a comment
during Wednesday’s Democratic presidential debate that left many scratching
their heads. ‘We were supposed to be going after al-Qaeda, but over years now, not
only have we not gone after al-Qaeda,’ she said, adding, ‘our president is
supporting al-Qaeda.’
Donald Trump is supporting
al-Qaeda? Gabbard doubled down on her
statement during a post-debate appearance on Fox News, saying that the Trump
administration’s ‘support and alliance with Saudi Arabia that is both providing
direct and indirect support directly to al-Qaeda.’ ‘How can you say Saudi Arabia is a great
partner in fighting terrorism when they are fueling and funding terrorist
groups in Yemen?’ Gabbard added.
The congresswoman is correct. A CNN investigation found that American
arms sold to the Saudis have ended up in the hands of terrorists, including
al-Qaeda. You would think this would at least make the US question its
alliance with the Kingdom.
Which is exactly what Tulsi’s
fellow 2020 Democratic hopeful Sen. Elizabeth Warren did when she challenged
the Trump administration on this front.
So did conservative Republican Sen. Mike Lee and many other Republicans.
In mid-July, the
Democratic-majority House voted to block arms sales to Saudi Arabia. The ayes
included four Republicans, primarily in response to that government’s slaying
of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Still,
Saudi support to terrorists using US dollars and weapons was also part of that
opposition.
So, yes, Tulsi is correct. Donald Trump, however indirectly, ‘is
supporting al-Qaeda.’ Just like
Barack Obama did. One of the primary
criticisms of the Obama administration’s decision to arm Syrian rebel groups to
undermine dictator Bashar al-Assad in that country’s civil war, is that some of those rebels were in fact
terrorists, including al-Qaeda.
When the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee voted to support Obama in this effort in 2013, Sen. Rand Paul
staunchly opposed it and warned his hawkish colleagues. ‘This is an important moment,’ Paul declared, ‘You will be funding,
today, the allies of al-Qaeda. It’s an irony you cannot overcome.’
Ever since, there have been
multiple reports that the US was aiding al-Qaeda with its Syrian rebel support.
Even President Trump acknowledged this,
thus ending Obama’s policy in 2017. Like
Trump’s Saudi Arabia policy, Obama inadvertently supported terrorists in the
name of aiding allies. There’s no getting around that fact.
Now, would Obama acknowledge he was
supporting al-Qaeda? No. Would Trump? Hell no. Would the hawks who man the Washington foreign policy establishment
ever admit their policies in Saudi Arabia and Syria were indirectly aiding
terrorists? Never. Don’t expect them to even consider the possibility,
before or after committing that act of insanity. Being part of the
establishment means never having to say you’re wrong or sorry.
In fact, when Sen. Paul tried to warn his fellow senators six years ago
that sending arms to Syrian rebels would end up helping terrorists, Sen. Marco
Rubio scoffed, saying, ‘I don’t think any member of this committee would
vote for anything we thought was going to arm al-Qaeda.’
But he did. They all did.
The US government, under the previous and present administrations, has
pursued policies that have indirectly supported al-Qaeda. It has been a
bipartisan policy, in whatever form it takes, under whichever president, that
is as crazy as it sounds.
Thanks to Tulsi Gabbard for
reminding us.
Yes indeed, thanks to Tulsi Gabbard for reminding us of what
traitors we have in our government. A
government where the lunatics have taken over the American foreign policy
asylum. Tulsi Gabbard has no chance of
defeating the DNC or RNC and actually becoming president, it just won’t be
allowed. But Donald Trump is President
and will be reelected President. Now is
the time to take back America’s foreign policy asylum and put the lunatics back
in their locked rooms, heavily medicated where they can no longer hurt America,
her people and the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment