A MUST -- The Reason Behind the US Government’s Secret Hatred of Europeans

ERIC ZUESSE | 21.06.2017 | WORLD

The Reason Behind the US Government’s Secret Hatred of Europeans

The reason for the US government’s hostility — at least since 4 February 2014 —toward Europeans, has been a mystery, until now.

This hostility wasn’t even publicly recognized at all, until it leaked out, on that date, from a tapped phone-line of arguably the most powerful person at the US State Department, the person whom American President Barack Obama had personally entrusted with running his Administration’s most geostrategically sensitive secret foreign operations (and she did it actually throughout almost the entirety of Obama’s eight years in office, regardless of whom the official US Secretary of State happened to be at the time): Victoria Nuland.

Her official title was «Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs» and she was appointed to that post by the President himself, but nominally she reported to him through the Deputy Secretary of State William Joseph Burns, who reported to the Secretary of State, who, in turn, reported to the President. 

She ran policies specifically on Ukraine (and, more broadly, against Russia). In the famous leaked phone call that she made on 4 February 2014 to the US Ambassador to Ukraine Geoffrey Pyatt, she instructed him to place in charge of Ukraine’s government, once America’s coup in Ukraine would be completed (which then occurred 18 days later and overthrew the democratically elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, entirely in violation of Ukraine’s own Constitution), «Yats» or Arseniy Yatsenyuk. He did, immediately after the coup was completed, receive this crucial appointment — basically, the power to control all other top appointments in the new Ukrainian government. With this appointment, the coup, which had started by no later than 2011 to be planned inside the US State Department, was effectively completed.

In this phone call, Nuland said «F—k the EU!» and no one, at the time, paid much attention to what this outburst was all about, but only that it sounded shockingly undiplomatic. Finally, however, clear evidence has now emerged, concerning what it was actually about. 

This crucial evidence consists of a refusal (at long last) by both Germany and Austria, to ratchet-up further, as the US regime now demands, economic sanctions against Russia, sanctions that are a key part of America’s plan ultimately to conquer Russia — a plan that’s been carried out consistently by all US federal governments since the moment, on the night of 24 February 1990, when US President George Herbert Walker Bush himself secretly announced it to West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl, and afterward to other US vassal-heads-of-state — that, though the Soviet Union was already irrevocably in the process of ending the Cold War against the US and its allies, the US and its allies would secretly continue that war, henceforth, against Russia, until Russia itself would be conquered. He was implicitly informing them, there, that the Cold War, on the US side, wasn’t really about ideology (capitalist versus communist), but instead, was actually a long war for conquest, of the entire world (now it would be to strip Russia of its allies, and then to go in for the kill), by the US aristocracy and its vassal aristocracies (whom those European leaders represented).

On 15 June 2017, the Associated Press headlined «Germany, Austria slam US sanctions against Russia», and reported that both of those US vassal-nations, while paying obeisance to the imperial master, were not going to proceed further all the way to destruction of their own major oil and gas companies, in order to please that master:

In a joint statement, Austria's Chancellor Christian Kern and Germany's Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel said it was important for Europe and the United States to form a united front on the issue of Ukraine, where Russian-based separatists have been fighting government forces since 2014.

«However, we can't accept the threat of illegal and extraterritorial sanctions against European companies», the two officials said, citing a section of the bill that calls for the United States to continue to oppose the Nord Stream 2 pipeline that would pump Russian gas to Germany beneath the Baltic Sea. Half of the cost of the new pipeline is being paid for by Russian gas giant Gazprom, while the other half is being shouldered by a group including Anglo-Dutch group Royal Dutch Shell, French provider Engie, OMV of Austria and Germany's Uniper and Wintershall. Some Eastern European countries, including Poland and Ukraine, fear the loss of transit revenue if Russian gas supplies don't pass through their territory anymore once the new pipeline is built.

Gabriel and Kern accuse the US of trying to help American natural gas suppliers at the expense of their Russian rivals. They said the possibility of fining European companies participating in the Nord Stream 2 project «introduces a completely new, very negative dimension into European-American relations».

Currently, and for a very long time, the leading energy-supplier to the EU has been Russia, in the forms of oil and, especially, natural gas, both of which are transported into the EU via an extensive network of pipelines, most of which travel through Ukraine, which is a major reason why the US rulers wanted to take over Ukraine — in order to stop that, or at least to cause a necessity for Russia to build alternative pipelines (which the US regime would likewise do everything to block from happening) — but now both Germany and Austria are saying no to this US effort. 

sThe US regime wants fracked US natural gas to fill an increasing portion of Europe’s needs, and for natural gas from US-allied fundamentalist Sunni royal regimes to fill as much of the rest as possible, so as to squeeze-out the existing top supplier, Russia. (Until recently, the plan was for US ally Qatar, owned by the Thani royal family, to become Europe’s main supplier, via pipelines which would traverse through Syria, for which reason Syria needs to be conquered (so that those pipelines through Syria can be built, perhaps even by American firms). However, the Sauds, who usually run US foreign relations — often with assistance from the Israeli regime, which is far more popular in the United States and also in Europe (and thus serves as the Sauds’ agents in the US and Europe) — have now blockaded Qatar because of Qatar’s insufficient compliance with the Sauds’ demand for total international isolation of Iran and of any other nation where Shia are or might become dominant. (For example, the Sauds bomb Yemen to impose fundamentalist Sunni leadership there and kill the Shia population.) And, so, now, after the break between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, even more than before, the main beneficiaries of cutting off Russian gas-supplies to the EU would be US fracking companies.

However, the big European oil and gas corporations would then play a smaller role in the European market, because those firms have mutual commitments with Gazprom and other Russian giants. The only big winners, now, of increased sanctions against Russia, would thus be US firms.

«Europe's energy supply is a matter for Europe, and not for the United States of America», Kern and Gabriel said.

Europe already has suffered considerable economic harm from complying with the US on taking over Ukraine, and from absorbing millions of destitute and alien refugees from Syria, Libya, and other countries where the US CIA, and other agencies, fomented the «Arab Spring» to unlock, in those countries, the oil and gas pipeline potential, which, if controlled by the US, would go to US oilfield-services firms such as Halliburton, and not to European ones such as Schlumberger. 

Kern and Gabriel — and the local national aristocracies (respectively Austrian, and German) whom they represent — are now speaking publicly about the limits beyond which they will not go in order to obey their US masters.

Consequently, back in February 2014, when the European aristocracies complied with the US aristocracy’s coup in Ukraine even though knowing full well that it was a barbaric and very bloody coup and nothing ‘democratic’ such as the US-manufactured story-line alleged it to have been, those aristocracies accepted the heist because they thought and expected to be cut in on enough of the looting of Ukraine so as to come out ahead on it. But that’s no longer the case. Because of the Sauds’ campaign against the Thanis (the owners of Qatar), the gang are starting to break up. The US gangsters are no longer clearly in control, but are being forced to choose between the Sauds and the Thanis, and have apparently chosen the Sauds. The Sauds financed the 9/11 attacks in the United States, but are the largest foreign purchasers of US-made weapons.

The US aristocracy hate Europeans because the US aristocracy are determined to conquer Russia, and because Europeans aren’t fully cooperating with that overriding US government goal — many EU billionaires want deals with Russia, but America’s billionaires are determined instead to take over Russia, and so the US (and the Sauds) might be losing its traditional support from the EU.

International affairs — US, Russia, Sauds, Thanis, Iran, Germany, UK, etc. — are in unpredictable flux. But Europe seems gradually to be drifting away from the US

And resistant European aristocrats seem to be digging in their heels on this. Here is a translation of a report dated June 17th from the most reliable source of news regarding international relations, Deutsche Wirtschafts Nachrichten, or «German Economic News»:

Eastern Committee: US sanctions against Russia are a threat to Europe

German Economic News | Released:17.06.17 00:36 Clock

The Eastern Committee of the German economy is indignant at the new US sanctions against Russia.

The German companies have sharply criticized the US sanctions against Russia. «The sanctions plans of the US Senate are deeply alarming and, in principle, a threat to the European and German economy», said Klaus Schäfer, Deputy Chairman of the Eastern Committee of the German Economy, on Friday evening in Berlin. «America first is a new dimension to open up international markets to US providers at the expense of European jobs. Furthermore, we consider an extraterritorial application of economic initiatives generally wrong, «he said. In the Eastern Committee, the German companies active in Eastern Europe are organized. The federal government had also clearly criticized the sanction decision.

«Every further turn at the sanctioning screw increases the danger of new trade wars and the uncertainty of the world economy», warned Schäfer. The solution of the Ukraine conflict is not a step closer. A de-escalation on all sides was necessary. He pointed out that the US-Russia trade represented only one-tenth of the EU-Russia trade. «We pay the price of sanctions to Europeans», he criticized. «Implementation of the planned sanctions would make Europe more difficult to provide with favorable energy and inevitably lead to higher prices».

The most remarkable thing about this intensification of economic aggression by the US aristocracy against some of the European aristocracies, is that instead of the aggression being spearheaded this time by the US President, it’s being spearheaded by an almost unanimous US Senate: 97 out of the 100 US Senators voted for this bill. One cannot, this time around, reasonably blame «Donald Trump» for this ‘nationalism’ — it is instead clearly a Cold War, this time, by the US aristocracy (who are represented by the US government), against some European aristocracies, which are paying insufficient obeisance to the demands by the imperial aristocracy: the US gang.

Whereas, at the time of the US coup in Ukraine, the EU swallowed in silence their shock at how brutal and bloody it had been, and stayed with the Americans because the Americans claimed that the takeover would benefit European aristocracies too (‘expand the EU’), the lie about that is now clear to all (and Ukraine has been too wrecked by America, to be of much use to anyone but the Americans as a staging base for their missiles against Moscow), and therefore «the Western Alliance» might finally be breaking up.

The vassal-governments have put up with a lot from the US aristocracy, such as when German Chancellor Angela Merkel’s phone was revealed to be tapped by America’s NSA, and the case was quietly dropped because, «Prosecutors say they can find no actionable evidence to support claims German chancellor’s mobile phone was tapped by US National Security Agency» even though everyone knew that the refusal by Germany’s prosecutors was based upon a lie, and that Germany «remains heavily reliant on the US», and that the US government’s knowing everything that German politicians do, provides against those politicians a blackmail-potential against themselves, that cannot be taken lightly. On the other hand, perhaps there now exists a countervailing force that can outweigh even considerations such as that. Maybe Germany’s billionaires have, somehow, finally become able to turn the tide on this.

ERIC ZUESSE -- A Likely Way that Trump Would Be Forced Out of Office

ERIC ZUESSE | 10.01.2017 | OPINION

A Likely Way that Trump Would Be Forced Out of Office

It is clear, from the overwhelming opposition to Donald Trump’s taking office on January 20th as the U.S. President, opposition on the part of the entire U.S. Establishment — the aristocrats and their agents in the government and media and think tanks — that any opportunity to replace Trump with the Democratic Party’s Establishment Presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, or any other Establishmentarian, would be welcomed by the Establishment. First, there were the efforts to have vote-recounts in the three states where Trump’s victory over Clinton were the narrowest; then, there was the orchestrated campaign to switch to her enough Electoral College electors for her to ‘win’; then, there was the effort to portray Trump’s win as having been engineered in Moscow and thus illegitimate. But now, could come the tactic that actually has the highest likelihood of succeeding, and it would replace Trump with his own Establishment Republican Vice President, Mike Pence. Here’s how it would work:

Section 4 of the 25^th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution asserts:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of... the principal officers of the executive departments… transmit to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department, or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the president pro tempore of the Senate and the speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session.

Trump has appointed, as being far over a majority of the principal officers of the executive departments — i.e., majority of his 15-person Cabinet — Establishment Republicans, who favor continuation of the Cold War against Russia. This continuation of that hostility on the American side had started when the Establishment Republican U.S. President George Herbert Walker Bush, on 24 February 1990, confidentially instructed not only his Cabinet, but heads-of-state of America’s European allies, that NATO and NATO’s hostility toward Russia, was to continue in secret, even after the Soviet Union and its communism and its Warsaw Pact military alliance would end, which end of those Soviet entities occurred in 1991. Under Obama, the old American «Cold War» (henceforth against Russia on the alleged basis of both Ukraine and Syria) was getting hotter than it had been since at least the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, but candidate Trump was now promising to stop it. 

ERIC ZUESSE -- US Aristocracy Panics that Maybe Trump Is Serious

 

ERIC ZUESSE | 08.01.2017 | WORLD

US Aristocracy Panics that Maybe Trump Is Serious

On January 2^nd, the U.S. Republican Party’s Wall Street Journal headlined «Tensions Within GOP Rise Over How to Handle Russia», and reported that the policy toward Russia by the incoming Republican President Donald Trump is being opposed not only by Democrats in the U.S. Congress, but also by some Republicans, and perhaps even by enough Republicans to jeopardize confirmation of his nominee for U.S. Secretary of State, as well as some nominees for other crucial diplomatic and military positions.

A key insightful passage in that news-report was: «‘What you are seeing on Russia within the Republican Party is in some ways more a symptom of realignment across the board within American political parties,’ said Matthew Rojansky, director of the Washington-based Kennan Institute. ‘This speaks to something very critical that’s going on in our political system right now.’»

Trump is being significantly opposed by both Parties regarding his foreign policies, even though his domestic policies are being opposed on a far more partisan basis, by Democrats, and have a higher chance of congressional passage than his international initiatives do, because of the almost-solid support for his domestic policies on the part of Republican members of Congress — and because Republicans control both the Senate and the House.

The «realignment across the board within American political parties» is actually a realignment only in the field of foreign policy — not at all in domestic policy. What used to be «Republican foreign policy» ever since the time of Richard Nixon, has been called «neoconservatism» — referring to a hard line against communism and then against Russia and any country that’s friendly toward Russia — but the incoming Republican President Trump campaigned consistently against neoconservatism, and now Democrats are almost solidly neocons, while some Republicans are actually joining the Republican President in condemning neocons.

Whereas Trump is generally called «conservative» on his domestic policy statements, he could possibly turn out to be more of a «progressive» than his Democratic Party predecessor, President Barack Obama, was, regarding foreign affairs. And this terrifies the U.S. aristocracy in both of the political Parties, because the U.S. aristocracy — both its Republicans and its Democrats — has been solidly neoconservative: they are virtually united, on this, against Trump.

The U.S. aristocracy control not only the major American corporations, but all influential ‘news’ media, and their respective ‘news’media; and their shared fear and loathing for incoming U.S. President Donald Trump is clear, even though he himself is one of them. Nobody knows what will happen to the U.S. government under his stewardship, but the fear amongst almost all of the other aristocrats is that maybe Trump hasn’t only been pretending to want a ‘populist’ government — they fear that he might really have such revolutionary intentions. They are consequently afraid: might it really be the case that a revolution — especially one transforming America’s foreign policies, which are the policies that are of the greatest interest to aristocrats (more even than domestic policies are) — will be led by a member of their own class? Is the ruling class — the thousand or so of them in the U.S. — perhaps now splitting, in a way that is far more meaningful than the merely superficial (rhetorical) distinctions that still remain between America’s two major political Parties, the Republicans and the Democrats?

The old ideological political alliances within the United States have now utterly broken down, and the reason is that in recent decades, both the right and the left had been controlled behind the scenes, by America’s billionaires and centi-millionaires, who are virtually unanimous on some policy-issues (so that the U.S. has a one-party government on these matters), with no significant ideological dissent amongst the U.S. aristocracy on those key issues, especially about continuing the old ideological Cold War against communism, switched now into a purely nationalistic and increasingly hot war against Russia, as allegedly an evil and imperialistic nation in ways that the United States itself is supposedly not (but actually is even more so than Russia or any other nation in the world, and widely recognized as such, except inside the United States itself, where the aristocracy’s ‘news’ media hide this ugly nationalistic fact about the land they control — the fact of America’s being the world’s most aggressive nation).

America’s super-rich have no objection against the government that they control conquering others, like the Iraq-invasion in 2003, and the U.S. coup overthrowing and replacing the democratically elected and Moscow-friendly President of that country in 2014, and aiding jihadists in Syria to overthrow Syria’s pro-Russian secular government; and the phone-tapping of all Western leaders including Angela Merkel and generally practicing cyber-invasions everywhere in the world — but they and their agents allege that Russia is doing these things even worse than America is, and needs to be punished by the ‘virtuous’ U.S. government for (allegedly) doing what the U.S. actually does far more than any other nation in the world.

Though Trump has reversed himself on many things that threaten the U.S. aristocracy, such as by his saying he won’t, after all, prosecute Hillary Clinton for her crimes (which were never really investigated under Obama’s regime — and protecting the legal immunity of aristocrats is crucial to the aristocracy of both political Parties), Trump still hasn’t — now just days before entering the White House — reversed himself regarding his intention to improve relations with Russia. 

Becoming even more hostile toward Russia is almost a unanimous goal of the U.S. aristocracy. They’re thus rebelling against him, in their ‘news’media, and they won’t stop trying to cripple his Presidency unless and until he relents on this, turns around, and continues, ever-hotter than before, their (under Obama, increasing) ’Cold War’ against Russia: going beyond even what President Obama has been doing (coups, invasions, sanctions, etc.), aiming to replace the Russian government’s allies by the American government’s allies, and thus to isolate and weaken Russia, ultimately to take over Russia itself.

During the early years of the Cold War, America’s Republican Party and their ‘news’ media, especially insisted upon increasing the war against the Soviet Union; but, now, in the purely nationalistic war against Russia, it’s instead Democratic Party politicians and ‘news’ media, who are especially fervid to conquer Russia. Republican Party ‘news’ media, such as Fox ‘News’, are now considerably less hateful toward Russia, no longer obsessed against it, like the Democratic Party’s ‘news’ media have become — thereby switching political roles.

Consequently, too, for example, the Democratic Party’s Washington Post is doing everything they can to encourage U.S. conquest of Russia, such as by spreading fake ‘news’ stories against the few small independent Western newsmedia that are pointing out the lies (especially the ones against Russia) in such media-giants; and some of the Republican Party’s ‘news’media now are even doing in-depth actual news-reporting about the fraudulence of the Democratic Party’s ‘news’media, on these matters that are of such intense interest to America’s aristocrats.

Excellent examples of this phenomenon are provided by the various ‘news’media of the rightwing-populist Alex Jones, which featured, on New Year’s Day, the video «Dems Want War With Russia To Stop Trump», and an associated investigative news report from their Mikael Thalen, «Washington Post Stirs Fear After False Report of Power Grid Hack by Russia», exposing the WP’s lying propaganda for «War With Russia» — Democrats’ (and a few Republicans’) lies basically to promote unsubstantiated allegations by the Obama regime, that ‘Russian hacking’ is a danger both to American ‘democracy’, and to American national security.

That «War With Russia» video (at 5:00-) presents the futurist, Gerald Celente, discussing liberal Democrats who were saying, totally without evidence, such things as »Vermonters and all Americans should be both alarmed and outraged that one of the world’s leading thugs, Vladimir Putin, has been attempting to hack our electric grid, which we rely upon to support our quality of life, economy, health, and safety.» The infamous 1950s Republican, Joseph R. McCarthy, has thus non-ideologically returned from the grave, now, in the guise of liberal Democrats (or should that instead be ‘Democrats’?), as part of the U.S. aristocracy’s war to force the Republican President, Donald Trump, to join the tradition that the Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush established, on 24 February 1990, of treating Russia as being America’s enemy, no longer communism as being America’s enemy.

These people simply can’t draw enough of other people’s blood. Bram Stoker might be shocked that reality has thus produced ghouls who would make Stoker’s own legendary vampires seem like angels by comparison. Will Trump perform the role of Stoker’s hero, Abraham van Helsing here, or instead become just another of the vampires himself (which all of America’s major, and most of its minor, ‘news’media are demanding)?

ERIC ZUESSE -- Are US Economic Sanctions Against Russia Based on an Obama Lie?

ERIC ZUESSE | 06.01.2017 | WORLD | BUSINESS

Are US Economic Sanctions Against Russia Based on an Obama Lie?

SUMMARY

If the March 2014 annexation of Crimea by Russia was based upon the overwhelming desire by Crimeans that Crimea become again a part of Russia such as Crimea had been until 1954, instead of upon Russia’s ‘conquest’ of Crimea such as Obama has charged, then the economic sanctions that Obama placed against Russia on the basis of that annexation is on false ground, and has no authentic justification in law or in fact. Also, in that case, NATO's subsequent military buildup against Russia, purportedly to protect NATO against ‘another such conquest by Russia’, would be based upon this same lie: the lie that Crimea’s becoming again a part of Russia was something other than a legitimate carrying-out of any people’s sovereign right, of self-determination of peoples — a right that the West recognizes for Catalonians in Spain, and for Scotch in UK, but not for Crimeans in Ukraine. Consequently, essential to addressing this crucial matter is forthrightly to address misrepresentations that are commonly asserted regarding it, and also to address in a credible way what the motivations might be for any such commonly asserted misrepresentations of this historically crucial matter. In other words, an unusually frank discussion is necessary here, which does not mince words where outright lies have been stated and become widespread in the West, and which instead presents the facts that stand forth the most clearly upon the basis of the evidence that is of the very highest reliability and credibility concerning each respective point in question in the matter. The most reliable evidence is presented here, and is consistently in favor of the Russian position, and against The West's (the U.S. and its allies) position, on this crucial, even mega-historical, issue.

INTRODUCTION

This question’s importance derives from its concerning the validity, or not, of the rationale for the economic sanctionsagainst Russia, and of the NATO military buildup against Russia on Russia’s borders (which latter buildup now threatens World War III). Nothing is more important than this.

ERIC ZUESSE -- Officials: Obama Prioritized Defeating Assad Above Defeating Jihadists

ERIC ZUESSE | 08.12.2016 | WORLD

Officials: Obama Prioritized Defeating Assad Above Defeating Jihadists

SUMMARY

The evidence is clear and convincing: U.S. President Barack Obama, against advice and warnings from his top military officers, pursued a policy to protect the fundamentalist-Sunni organization, Al Qaeda in Syria (called «Al Nusra» there), and to arm them, so as to overthrow Bashar al-Assad and replace Assad’s secular government with a Sharia-law, fundamentalist-Sunni, government, which would be allied with the fundamentalist-Sunni Saud family — the deadly enemies of Iran, Assad’s Syria, and Russia. (Both Iran and Assad’s Syria are allied with Russia.) Obama and the Sauds wanted this replacement of Assad by jihadists for different reasons: Obama’s goal was to terminate and replace yet another ruler who is allied with Russia; but the Sauds’ goal was to terminate and replace Shia-Islam by the Sauds’ own fundamentalist Sunni form of Islam.

1: INTRODUCTION

The classified, leaked, and FOIAed (Freedom of Information Act released) U.S. Government documentation that will be quoted and linked-to here, is entirely consistent with the news-reporting that the longtime New Yorker reporter Seymour Hersh was unable to publish in that American magazine and so he published it instead in the London Review of Books; and this independently released (FOIAed) information confirms Hersh’s reports about U.S. President Barack Obama’s lying to not only the public but also members of his own Administration (alleging to them that his primary target was jihadists not Russians). This disjunction between Obama’s words-and-deeds puzzled his Joint Chiefs of Staff, who ultimately rebelled against Obama’s prioritizing war against Syria and Russia, over war against jihadists. Several of them quit; others were fired; all because they prioritized conquering and killing jihadists over conquering and killing Russians and allies of Russia.

This documentation, and Hersh’s interviews with his own contacts in the U.S. Government (which will be excerpted here), show that U.S. President Barack Obama secretly prioritized conquering the non-sectarian, secularist, Syrian Government headed by the secular Shiite Bashar al-Assad, above conquering and destroying jihadists, and that Obama even secretly supplied weapons and training to foreign jihadists (Sunni fundamentalists supported by the Saud family) who were imported into Syria as the «boots on the ground» to achieve this Syrian regime-change, or government-overthrow — Obama’s unacknowledged proxy army against Assad, to do what American boots-on-the-ground would not: install a Sharia-law government in Syria, beholden to the Sauds, no longer a government that relied upon Russia for its protection. Obama helped jihadists to overthrow Assad, but he never succeeded at his goal. 

Furthermore, the objective of Obama in this was to place Syria under the control of the Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia, and whose top international goal is to conquer majority-Muslim nations that are Shiite or non-sectarian (such as Syria) instead of Sunni (as the Saud family themselves are). Obama was taking the Saudi side in the Sauds’ international war to control all majority-Islamic nations — including especially to control all currently Shiite-controlled nations, such as Syria and Iran, which are especially hated by the Sauds.

ERIC ZUESSE -- Democrats Caused President Trump; They Caused His Victory

ERIC ZUESSE | 14.11.2016 | WORLD

Democrats Caused President Trump; They Caused His Victory

Here’s a video where Carey Wedler explains in her own thoroughly truthful way in just four minutes, how and why Democratic Party voters for Hillary Clinton in the Democratic Party primaries did more than perhaps any other single political group of Americans to help make Donald Trump become America’s President. But here, in my own equally truthful way, which you can easily verify for yourself by simply clicking onto a link anywhere that you question a statement’s veracity (which, of course, can’t be done with any video), I’ll explain it, very differently:

Democratic voters during the Presidential primaries were given a clear choice, and blew it; they chose the by-far-weaker of the two candidates (Clinton instead of Sanders), weaker not only in all of the head-to-head matchups against each and every one of the possible Republican candidates, but weaker in the progressive ideology that President Franklin Delano Roosevelt had brought to the Party and which had made the FDR-era (1932-1980) Democratic Party the engine of progressive change in America. Bill Clinton killed it, and Hillary Clinton’s election would have prevented the progressive Democratic Party from ever being resurrected again; and here’s how that happened:

Bill Clinton had come into office as the new anti-FDR, pro-unrestrained-capitalism, virtual founder of the Democratic Leadership Council, which repudiated not only the anti-Wall-Street tradition of FDR but all of FDR’s approaches and programs to achieve increased equality of economic opportunity in America. Not only did he do this by passing the Republican George Herbert Walker Bush’s NAFTA into law and by passing the Republicans’ deregulation (especially ending FDR’s Glass-Stegall regulation) of Wall Street into law, but Clinton and the DLC rebuilt the Democratic Party as being instead merely a less extreme version of the post-Richard-Nixon Republican Party: Republican-lite, running against Republican-extreme (which was the existing Republican Party). By doing this — moving the Democratic Party to the right— they moved the American political center substantially toward the right, because now, in Bill Clinton’s wake, any Republican incumbent who fails to move toward the right was being challenged in Republican Party primaries by ‘Tea Party Republicans’ who accused any such incumbent of being a Republican In Name Only, or RINO. Consequently: Congress and other political bodies did become more right-wing. 

ERIC ZUESSE -- This Is No ‘New Cold War’; It’s Far Worse Than That

ERIC ZUESSE | 03.11.2016 | WORLD

ERIC ZUESSE

American writer and investigative historian

This Is No ‘New Cold War’; It’s Far Worse Than That

Here is the reason why we are currently even closer to a civilization-ending nuclear war than was the case during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962:

During the Cold War, the two sides agreed that any war between the capitalist side and the communist side would escalate to nuclear war between the US and the USSR and constitute Mutually Assured Destruction (M.A.D.). Therefore, because of this mutual acceptance of M.A.D., hot war did not develop during that entire period, from 1945 till the Soviet Union dissolved and ended its military alliance the Warsaw Pact, both of which ended in 1991. Throughout that 45-year period, called «the Cold War», there was no hot war between the two nuclear superpowers, because both sides believed that any hot war would end in M.A.D. — mutual annihilation, and the end of civilization.

It would end that way because any hot war between the two sides would terminate either in one side surrendering to the other, or else in at least one of the two sides (presumably to be started by the one that’s on the brink of defeat in the traditional hot war) nuclear-attacking the other (as being its only alternative to defeat). In other words, M.A.D. recognized and accepted the fact that for a nuclear power to attack a nuclear power with non-nuclear weaponry will almost certainly provoke a nuclear war at the moment when one of the two is losing (or about to lose) the conventional conflict to the other. Nuclear weapons are weapons of last resort, but they exist in order to prevent defeat. That is what they exist for. If Japan had had deliverable nuclear weapons, then the end of World War II would have been considerably delayed. Japan would have lost because it had no allies, but the end of WW II would have been very different than it was.

Only M.A.D. avoided the Cold War becoming a hot war. 

But M.A.D. is not just a physical reality but equally importantly a mutually-shared belief-system, a belief-system that becomes no longer operative if one of the two sides switches to believe that a way exists actually to win a nuclear war — in other words, to believe that conquest of a nuclear power by another nuclear power is a real possibility. During the years prior to 2006, there was an increasing though unspoken belief at the top of the US aristocracy (the people who control the US government — or at least have controlled it since 1981), that the United States would be able to win a nuclear war against Russia; and, suddenly, in 2006, the belief was published, and virtually no one who possessed power or influence challenged it; and, from that time forward, M.A.D. was ended on the American side, and nuclear weapons became, in the US, strategized within a new framework (called «nuclear primacy»,) — the framework of nuclear weapons as constituting the ultimate weapons of conquest by the US government.

After 1991, when the Warsaw Pact no longer existed, the US military alliance NATO invited into its membership all of the former states of the USSR except Russia (thereby indicating NATO’s continuing hostility toward that particular nation and the fraudulence of NATO’s peace with it), and also invited in all of the USSR's former Warsaw Pact allies, and so NATO (a now clearly anti-Russian, no longer at all anti-communist, alliance) has come to extend right up to Russia’s own borders — something that the US had refused to allow the USSR to do to the US in 1962, when the Soviet dictator Khrushchev wanted to place nuclear missiles in Cuba just 90 miles from America’s border. 

ERIC ZUESSE -- Clinton Plans to Destroy Russia

ERIC ZUESSE | 31.08.2016 | WORLD

Clinton Plans to Destroy Russia

Leaked emails are filling in the picture of a Bill-and-Hillary-Clinton plan to destroy Russia – a plan which had originated with US President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1990, and which has been followed through both by his son George W Bush, and by both of the Clintons, but which has only recently started to become documented by leaked publications of personal communications amongst the key operatives who were the insiders running this operation behind the scenes, and who include Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, George W Bush, Victoria Nuland, Jeffrey Feltman, Saudi Prince Bandar bin Sultan al-Saud, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammed bin Salman al-Saud, and the Emir of Qatar.

ERIC ZUESSE -- The Movement Toward Nuclear War (I)

ERIC ZUESSE | 15.06.2016 | WORLD

The Movement Toward Nuclear War (I)

Antagonizing Western Publics Against Russia

During a recent interview that former Soviet – then subsequently Russian – President Mikhail Gorbachev gave in Moscow at his namesake Foundation (to be published in Rupert Murdoch’s London Times), Gorbachev publicly approved of Crimea’s return to Russia. He said there, «I’m always with the free will of the people and most in Crimea wanted to be reunited with Russia». This statement, when it was published in the Times on 22 May 2016 (and then the next day posted to the Gorbachev Foundation site copying the Times’s version), was surrounded in the so-called ‘interview’ by propaganda from Murdoch’s ‘interviewer’ the ‘journalist’ Mark Franchetti, arguing there against Gorbachev’s statement concerning this important matter. Franchetti’s article (his ‘interview’ of Gorbachev) allowed very little of direct quotations from Gorbachev; so, it didn’t enable the presumed interview-subject to provide any evidence in support of the interviewee’s viewpoint – evidence such as, for example, even the Western-sponsored polls of Crimeans, which always have shown overwhelming support for Crimea’s transfer back to Russia. (Not even the mere fact that Crimea had been part of Russia until the Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev arbitrarily transferred it to Ukraine, in 1954, was mentioned in the Murdoch propagandist’s article, though this fact too is a crucial one in the entire matter.)

Nonetheless, this mere statement by Gorbachev was enough to cause Gorbachev to become banned in Ukraine – that is, in the new, rabidly anti-Russian, fascist and pro-fascist, regime in Ukraine, that had been installed there in February 2014 by US President Barack Obama’s agents under the cover of public anti-corruption demonstrations.

Just four days after the Times’s ‘interview’, on May 26^th, Ukrayinska Pravda («Ukrainian Truth») then bannered, «Gorbachev denied entry to Ukraine for 5 years», and reported that, «Security banned the ex-Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev from Ukraine for a period of 5 years. This was reported to ‘Ukrayinska Pravda’ by a source in the SBU [Security Bureau of Ukraine], who wished to remain anonymous». This article mentioned that Anton Gerashchenko in Ukraine’s parliament had in 2014 originally called for Gorbachev to be banned. And now it was finally being done.

This Pravda article didn’t mention that Gerashchenko was a close advisor to Arsen Avakov, who was head of the SBU in the new American-installed regime in Ukraine, and that Gerashchenko had, himself, in October 2015, been supporting ISIS to defeat Assad in Syria so as to weaken Russia. In other words, Obama could hardly have installed a more rabidly anti-Russian regime in Ukraine than he did. Merely the fact that ISIS were seeking to oust an ally of Russia was enough for the US-installed new Ukrainian regime (the one that ended democracy in Ukraine) to support ISIS.

And, so, Gorbachev, who had ended the Cold War against America, was now being rewarded with contempt not only from the Russian public (as Franchetti in his article noticed and accurately reported there) for his naiveté in having accepted as being honest America’s repeated assurances (lies) that NATO would not move «one inch to the east», but with his outright banishment from the newest member of the US empire, Ukraine. And, of course, when Gorbachev was allowed in the Western press to get a word in edgewise to argue for the Russian position, his statements were now being surrounded and drowned out there by the comments from an ‘interviewer’ (if that propagandist can even honestly be called such). So, Gorbachev is now, in effect, dumped upon, even within the American empire (no longer just by the Russian people), though nobody can deny that he is an honorable and profoundly decent human being, who did the best he was capable of, for his people, and for the world-at-large.

But this is only the propaganda in countries where the Soviet Union and communism had never presented really a danger of invading by traditional, non-nuclear, forces – tanks rolling across borders, etc. The Warsaw Pact countries – Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and of course the core Russia – were in constant fear that the core country, Russia, might invade (along with some of the others in their alliance) to quell popular movements to join the democratic (it was authentically so then) West. These are countries (Russia’s traditional «buffer states» against potential invasions coming from the west) where a real fear of Russian conquest is a living memory, from recent generations. In addition, there are Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, which were conquered by the USSR in 1940. Ukraine, Georgia, and some other states within the USSR, had been conquered by Russia shortly after the Russian Revolution and so there were emigre communities abroad that were supportive of either the Nazis or else the democratic nations during World War II. All of these countries therefore have a much more fearful relationship with today’s, the post-Soviet, Russia, than do the core countries of the West (such as the UK, and the now master of them all, the US), which used to be democratic.

The issue of Crimea is part of the issue of Ukraine, only because, in 1954, the Soviet dictator Khrushchev arbitrarily transferred Crimea from Russia, of which Crimea had been a part since 1783, to Ukraine – the Crimean population had nothing to do with it: they overwhelmingly considered themselves to be Russians, and still do. Consequently, the issue that the US aristocracy and its associated aristocracies are alleging to be the basis for their economic sanctions against Russia and for their surrounding Russia with surges of weapons and soldiers against Russia, happens to be, by long standing, a part of Russia, not only by centuries-long tradition, but also by constant showings as such in all opinion polls of the Crimean public – the people themselves (the publics whom the once-democratic Western nations used to respect as being the very foundation stone for democracy – but obviously no longer do, because the Western nations are no longer authentic democracies, not even as close to that as they once were).

But the evil here, on the part of The West, goes beyond even that. The US government is now feeding the fear that the publics in all of the former Soviet and Soviet-allied subjugated states very naturally but also entirely unjustifiably feel against the successor Russian state; and this understandable residual fear, in turn, is being responded to by Russia, by means of its pouring tens of thousands of troops and associated armaments toward their borders in order to protect against a potential US invasion from US-allied soil.

This mutual buildup along Russia’s European borders can easily get out of control, and so Russia’s President Vladimir Putin has many times quietly urged Washington for there to be private communications between himself and US President Barack Obama to reach a peaceable conclusion to this escalation, but Obama repeatedly refuses.

The real function of Western propaganda in Western Europe, such as Rupert Murdoch’s recent propaganda using Mikhail Gorbachev in this way, is not so much in order to stir his countrymen’s fears of an invasion against their country by Russia, but is instead to stir sufficient support by Brits for UK to join with the US invasion of Russia that increasingly likely will be precipitated under the Article V provision of the NATO Treaty as a ‘justification’ to escalate to all-out war if and when Russia provides a ‘provocation’. That may not happen this year (and the US military sends signals that they won’t be prepared for that until 2017), but the buildup is happening right now.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/06/15/the-movement-toward-nuclear-war-i.html