Sauron Rules in Washington
May 5, 2017 by Paul Craig Roberts
“The problem is that the world has listened to Americans for far too bloody long.” — Dr. Julian Osborne, from the 2000 film version of Nevil Shute’s 1957 book, On the Beach
A reader asked why neoconservatives push toward nuclear war when there can be no winners. If all die, what is the point?
The answer is that the neoconservatives believe that the US can win at minimum and perhaps zero damage.
Their insane plan is as follows: Washington will ring Russia and China with anti-ballistic missile bases in order to provide a shield against a retaliatory strike from Russia and China. Moreover, these US anti-ABM bases also can deploy nuclear attack missiles unknown to Russia and China, thus reducing the warning time to five minutes, leaving Washington’s victims little or no time in which to make a decision.
The neoconservatives think that Washington’s first strike will so badly damage the Russian and Chinese retaliatory capabilities that both governments will surrender rather than launch a response. The Russian and Chinese leaderships would conclude that their diminished forces leave little chance that many of their ICBMs will be able to get past Washington’s ABM shield, leaving the US largely intact. A feeble retaliation by Russia and China would simply invite a second wave US nuclear attack that would obliterate Russian and Chinese cities, killing millions and leaving both countries in ruins.
In short, the American warmongers are betting that the Russian and Chinese leaderships would submit rather than risk total destruction.
There is no question that neoconservatives are sufficiently evil to launch a preemptive nuclear attack, but possibly the plan aims to put Russia and China into a situation in which their leaders conclude that the deck is stacked against them and, therefore, they must accept Washington’s hegemony.
To feel secure in its hegemony, Washington would have to order Russia and China to disarm.
This plan is full of risks. Miscalculations are a feature of war. It is reckless and irresponsible to risk the life of the planet for nothing more than Washington’s hegemony.
The neoconservative plan puts Europe, the UK, Japan, S. Korea, and Australia at high risk were Russia and China to retaliate. Washington’s ABM shield cannot protect Europe from Russia’s nuclear cruise missiles or from the Russian Air Force, so Europe would cease to exist. China’s response would hit Japan, S. Korea, and Australia.
The Russian hope and that of all sane people is that Washington’s vassals will understand that it is they that are at risk, a risk from which they have nothing to gain and everything to lose, repudiate their vassalage to Washington and remove the US bases. It must be clear to European politicians that they are being dragged into conflict with Russia. This week the NATO commander told the US Congress that he needed funding for a larger military presence in Europe in order to counter “a resurgent Russia.” https://www.rt.com/news/387063-nato-counter-resurgent-russia/
Let us examine what is meant by “a resurgent Russia.” It means a Russia that is strong and confident enough to defend its interests and those of its allies. In other words, Russia was able to block Obama’s planned invasion of Syria and bombing of Iran and to enable the Syrian armed forces to defeat the ISIS force sent by Obama and Hillary to overthrow Assad.
Russia is “resurgent” because Russia is able to block US unilateral actions against some other countries.
This capability flies in the face of the neoconservative Wolfowitz doctrine, which says that the principal goal of US foreign policy is to prevent the rise of any country that can serve as a check on Washington’s unilateral action.
While the neocons were absorbed in their “cakewalk” wars that have now lasted 16 years, Russia and China emerged as checks on the unilateralism that Washington had enjoyed since the collapse of the Soviet Union. What Washington is trying to do is to recapture its ability to act worldwide without any constraint from any other country. This requires Russia and China to stand down.
Are Russia and China going to stand down? It is possible, but I would not bet the life of the planet on it. Both governments have a moral conscience that is totally missing in Washington. Neither government is intimidated by the Western propaganda. Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov said yesterday that we hear endless hysterical charges against Russia, but the charges are always vacant of any evidence. https://sputniknews.com/politics/201705041053274379-lavrov-russia-us-relations/
Conceiveably, Russia and China could sacrifice their sovereignty for the sake of life on earth. But this same moral conscience will propel them to oppose the evil that is Washington in order not to succumb to evil themselves. Therefore, I think that the evil that rules in Washington is leading the United States and its vassal states to total destruction.
Having convinced the Russian and Chinese leaderships that Washington intends to nuke their countries in a suprise attack (see, for example, http://www.fort-russ.com/2017/04/us-forces-preparing-sudden-nuclear.html ), the question is how do Russia and China respond? Do they sit there and await an attack, or do they preempt Washington’s attack with an attack of their own?
What would you do? Would you preserve your life by submitting to evil, or would you destroy the evil?
Writing truthfully results in my name being put on lists (financed by who?) as a “Russian dupe/agent.” Actually, I am an agent of all people who disapprove of Washington’s willingness to use nuclear war in order to establish Washington’s hegemony over the world, but let us understand what it means to be a “Russian agent.”
It means to respect international law, which Washington does not. It means to respect life, which Washington does not. It means to respect the national interests of other countries, which Washington does not. It means to respond to provocations with diplomacy and requests for cooperation, which Washington does not. But Russia does. Clearly, a “Russian agent” is a moral person who wants to preserve life and the national identity and dignity of other peoples.
It is Washington that wants to snuff out human morality and beome the master of the planet. As I have previously written, Washington without any question is Sauron. The only important question is whether there is sufficient good left in the world to resist and overcome Washington’s evil.
Business Insider sought to assure its readers Saturday that the American “Deep State,” seeking to undermine the Trump administration, is a “dark conspiracy” theory pushed by sites like Breitbart News.
The article included a thinly veiled attack on Breitbart News as one of the “popular yet dubious websites,” pushing the “conspiracy theory” of entrenched opposition to President Donald Trump’s populist-nationalist agenda.
Breitbart News has reported vigorously on demonstrated and suspected resistance and disloyalty from the intelligence community in the career services of the federal agencies and among those outside the government itself, especially the mainstream media.
In response, left-leaning publications including the New York Times, Politico, The New Yorker, and the Washington Post have all published a slew of pieces dismissive of the idea into which Business Insider’s latest attempt neatly fits.
In its effort to question the validity of the concept of an American Deep State, Business Insider enlisted former intelligence community officials and a scholar from a beltway think tank. The first order of business is to whittle down the definition of a deep state to very specific incarnation seen almost exclusively in the third world.
A deep state, Aykan Erdemir of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a beltway foreign policy think tank that came to prominence with the interventionist posture of the George W. Bush administration, assures us, is just the kind of well-oiled apparatus seen in Egypt and Turkey that allows those countries’ security services to unseat democratically elected leaders.
The deep state is about “dramatic results like assassinations, mass killings, pogroms, bombings — it’s not about tension between the executive and the bureaucracy, it’s not about a failure to work together,” Erdemir told Business Insider.
Breitbart News has never published material suggesting any civil servants, intelligence officials, or media professionals are engaged in a program of “assassinations, mass killings, pogroms, [or] bombings” in America. The narrowing of the term deep state to refer only to those activities belies Breitbart News’s usage.
Breitbart News has consistently used the term to refer to the existence of much broader elements within and outside the federal government colluding to prevent President Trump from implementing his agenda.
The term “deep state” has been used to refer to deliberate leaks designed to undermine the president, but also to the willing collusion of elements of the mainstream media, the latent distrust and suspected opposition of elements of the intelligence services, but also the willing resistance of certain career civil servants in the agencies charged with carrying President Trump’s directions to fruition.
Whatever the definition, use of the term in the United States is causing those it targets some consternation. Business Insider cites remarks by ex-CIA director Michael Hayden for the proposition, “Experts and former government officials have warned against using the term deep state to refer to rifts between the US president and the intelligence community.”
Glenn Carle, an ex-CIA officer, goes so far as to warn the president and his supporters from antagonizing his fellow members of the intelligence community, pointing out that upsetting them could create “a gold mine of opportunity for foreign intelligence services” as these officials get back at Trump was his opposition to them by leaking information. “The deep state does not exist in fact but it exists in the minds of Trump supporters. That’s just as much a threat to society,” Carle explains to Business Insider.
Much of the Business Insider article’s treatment of the American Deep State is focused on the most visible effect it has had in the opening months of the Trump administration, namely the slew of leaks damaging that administration that have issued forth from the bowels of the federal government. Business Insider acknowledges the Wall Street Journal report that the intelligence community has withheld classified information from President Trump, and the intelligence officials interviewed admit the leaks could have from inside the same community, although they cast doubt on the idea.
Carle, however, has little trouble explaining why intelligence officials might engage in leaking or other acts of subversion. Of the president, he says, “He’s undermined the very values upon which this society was built. So, what do you do if you’re an intelligence official? If you serve the state, you betray it.”
Carle goes even further, appearing to justify the motives of intelligence officials taking a stand against Trump. “When leaks come from the intelligence community, it’s not to undermine the president or to protect the deep state. It’s to protect democracy — it stems from a sense of profound patriotism,” he said.
This is by no means the first time such positive sentiments about the supposedly non-existent American Deep State have been made by those who dismiss Breitbart’s coverage of the issue.
In the aftermath of one-time National Security Adviser Michael Flynn’s resignation in the aftermath of several leaks, apparently from the intelligence community, Bill Kristol openly gloated that he “preferred the deep state to the Trump state.” In reference to the same leaks, Evan Osnos of The New Yorker gushed that the “principled public servants who got the story out are hidden heroes.”
As the Trump administration acts contrary to the wishes of entrenched globalist interests, it continually runs up against steadfast opposition from elements in and outside the government. Ex-government officials, beltway pundits and the media appear increasingly eager to deny the existence of coordination in a “deep state,” despite their willingness to celebrate its successes.
EUROPE SURRENDERS TO ISLAM, MACRON BOWS TO MERKEL
Globalists get a major win with Macron’s victory over Le Pen
May 8, 2017
After a landslide victory over Le Pen, Macron immediately called Angela Merkel and said he’d be visiting soon.