FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.

“To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality."



Monday, October 17, 2016

The Science of Silencing

The Science of Silencing

John F. Kennedy was outspoken against the secret government growing behind the curtains of American democracy. In his address to American publishers and the media in 1961, two years prior to his public assassination, he remarked about the nature of secrecy and the dangers of allowing our government to operate without our consent and beyond our knowledge, warning the press to consider the importance of their role in protecting American liberty from the emergence of the Deep State. In essence, JFK was the first major American whistleblower.

“The very word ‘secrecy’ is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings.” ~John F. Kennedy.

Today, as the world hangs on every Wikileaks release coming from Edward Snowden, it is clear that the role of whistleblower in our society is critical to the survival of freedom, and also clear the public demands the truth.

The Science of Destroying Whistleblowers
There is a definitive science to preventing and destroying whistleblowers which includes a continuum of intimidation tactics that are very effective at keeping government employees from going public with information that could be harmful to the state.

Author of From the Company of Shadows, and a decorated former CIA officer and anti-terrorism specialist turned whistleblower, Kevin Shipp, recently spoke in a public awareness event in Northern California on the issues moral people face when confronted with evidence of state corruption. He begins by asking why there are not more whistleblowers in a world where government secrecy and covert activity has become the norm.

“I come from the belly of the best. I was a interviewer, interrogator, I was a counter intelligence agent. I was a polygraph examiner. I was an internal investigator, and on and on and on. So I know this system and I know it well, and then I experienced it personally. Why don’t people come out in these secret programs that they know are illegal and unconstitutional? Why don’t they come out and blow the whistle and tell people what’s going on?” — Kevin Shipp.

Speaking from his personal experience, both as a witness from inside the CIA and as a person who is directly taking the risks associated with exposing government corruption, he reveals his insight into this issue, offering a solid explanation of why more people don’t come forward with the truth about our government’s unconstitutional and immoral activities.

According to Shipp, there is a complete game plan in play that covers all the bases of intimidation, harrasment and coercion, and as outlined below, here are the main things that prevent more people from speaking out.

1. Binding Secrecy Agreements
Ninety-nine percent of all would-be whistleblowers are convinced to look the other way by use of binding secrecy agreements as terms for employment or promotion.

Essentially, in order to work for the government in any capacity that would involve one in any of the many unconstitutional programs it operates today, employees must sign binding secrecy agreements where they cannot talk without going to prison for doing so. This type of agreement was originally designed as a way to legitimately protect sources, methods and technology, however the intention has changed dramatically and it is now used broadly as a form of intimidation to conceal criminal activity.

These agreements are forfeitures of constitutional rights such as the right to a jury trial, the right to sue the government, and all rights to due process.

2. The Intelligence Community and the State Secrets Privilege
“There is a massive, mammoth, complex secret mechanism in the U.S. Government, it’s called the intelligence community. It is so powerful that not even the Congress or the Senate can control it. Matter of fact, it controls them. It does whatever it wants. They have these Senate investigations, and they’ll come and they say, ‘sorry Senator, we can’t tell you what we’re doing because you don’t have the agency clearance.’ And that’s where it’s shut down.” — Kevin Shipp.

By using the state secrets privilege, which was created by the executive branch of the U.S. Government, the intelligence community can prevent and stop any investigation into sensitive issues, it can prevent disclosure of pertinent information in an investigation, and it can stop any lawsuits it wishes to shut down.

“The state secrets privilege (SSP) is a common law privilege that allows the head of an executive department to refuse to produce evidence in a court case on the grounds that the evidence is secret information that would harm national security or foreign relation interests if disclosed.” [Source]

3. Direct Personal Intimidation and Harassment
If someone persists on going public with state secrets, or even indicates an intention to do so, there are a number of tactics that can be applied to embarrass, intimidate, and directly penalize them. This may come in the form of demotion, of giving someone embarrassing or compromising assignments, or by directly intervening in their personal lives in illegal ways such as financially destroying one’s family by blocking retirement funds or by raising interest rates on credit union loans so their vehicles and homes become unaffordable.

4. Psychological Re-Education
This tool is used to officially discredit a potential whistleblower before they actually go public so that if they succeed at drawing attention to an agency their character is already defamed and documented as being unstable.

“What they’ll do is they’ll say, ‘We can see that you’re very stressed out by all of this, and we want to help you, so we’re going to refer you to the office of medical services so you can undergo some psychological counseling to help you sleep at night and make you better and get rid of your anxiety. So we’re going to set up an appointment for you to meet with a psychologist.’

Now, where do you suppose that goes? The interview’s over, the document is falsified, ’employee is paranoid, obsessive-compulsive, and disgruntled.’ That goes in the file, so if it ever does get to the Congress or Senate or court, they pull it out and say, ‘Well, look, he or she went under an evaluation and they’re basically unstable, end of story, shut the case down.’” — Kevin Shipp

5. Internal Investigation by the Offices of Inspectors General
Inspector generals are presented as an objective and honest safeguard in the bureaucratic process, however this is not always true.

When a significant case is presented with overwhelming evidence against the state, the inspector general for any agency can step in with their own conclusions citing there is no problem, nor wrong-doing, and their internal investigation had not revealed anything. This effectively prevents any outside body from being able to fully examine whistleblower allegations.

Final Thoughts
“They will destroy you. They’ll destroy your career, your finances, destroy your family. They’ll take you all the way down as far as they can.” —Kevin Shipp

All in all this creates a culture of fear within all government agencies, effectively silencing dissent before it happens.

We’ve seen what happened to Bradley Manning who was prosecuted under the espionage act for releasing military documents to Wikileaks. Julian Assange and Edward Snowden have been living for years in exile under the protection of foreign governments for their roles in exposing how the state is violating our constitutional rights. Even at the civil level people who expose state corruption are persecuted beyond common sense as is evidenced in the case of Ramsey Orta, the only person going to jail in relation to the murder of Eric Garner by the NYPD, after he filmed Garner’s murder in 2014.

In light of all of this, it is no wonder that more people do not speak out on government programs that violate our natural and civil rights, for it takes tremendous courage and incurs significant risk to do so.

Lucas Dare

Decades of a Criminal War on Drugs

Decades of a Criminal War on Drugs

The Regime’s Reckoning

Irrespectively of how he, in fact, will govern if he becomes president, it’s no longer possible to deny that Donald Trump is indeed the anti-Establishment candidate.

To get as far as he has, Trump has had to battle the Regime every step of the way.  Now that the election is less than a month off, it has dispatched its agents from all quarters to not just defeat Trump, but to crucify him.

The Clintons and their legions of surrogates from the Obamas to the Bushes, from the Republican leadership in the Congress to all of the major media are tirelessly doing anything and everything to destroy the one person who (they at least believe) poses the biggest threat to their Empire.

Yet, as of this writing, Trump is still standing and the outcome of this contest remains an open question.  He will continue standing, I predict, right through Election Day—whether he wins the race or loses it, for Trump has already won.

To repeat, Trump has won.

Most Americans have long admitted to having, if nothing else, an intuitive sense that both Washington D.C. and the media are corrupt.

Trump has confirmed in spades that they’ve been right to trust their gut.  His candidacy has revealed for all with eyes to see the existence of a massive, sprawling government-media complex created and preserved by an elite that advances its class-interest behind the veneer of such rhetorical fictions as “Democracy,” “the Will of the People,” “Equality,” and the like.

This ruling class of like-minded individuals is accustomed to directing the lives of the rest of us.  However, its exercise of control is just as subtle as it is relentless, facilitated by an abstract, ahistorical, universalistic ideology.  Its proponents describe the latter in terms of “values,” “ideals,” “principles.”  Though Democrats are reluctant to invoke it, the doctrine of “American Exceptionalism,” the creed that America is nothing else than a proposition or idea, also expresses this ideology.  Moreover, it makes the ideology that much more marketable by lulling the casual hearer into thinking that the affirmation of this borderless, globalist doctrine is equivalent to an assertion of patriotism.

Trump, whether he intended for this to happen or not, has in effect deconstructed this myth.  He’s revealed that while the Regime promotes its fiction in the name of the citizenry, millions and millions of Americans, those to whom Hillary derisively referred as “deplorables,” resolutely reject it.

There have been other whistleblowers on the Regime.  Pat Buchanan and Ron Paul are two of the most prominent that immediately come to mine.  In fairness, even Bernie Sanders’ candidacy shed light on the corruption of Democrat Party politics.  But Trump is the first in our lifetime that has succeeded in actually exposing in all of its nakedness the manipulative, deceptive, and hypocritical nature of the whole Establishment.  Sanders is a leftist tool, and while Buchanan and Paul are both principled men—vastly more principled, in fact, than Trump—the cold hard truth of the matter is that they had neither the exposure nor the brashness to do in decades what Trump has managed to do within less than a year-and-a-half.

If the left and the neocon alt-left in Washington and the media think that a defeat at the polls for Trump is going to spell defeat for the movement that his candidacy brought to the fore, then they are even more delusional than we think.  Most Americans, regardless of party, distrust the media.  The tens of millions of Americans who found a voice in Trump despise it.  Whether Trump wins or loses on November 8, but especially if he loses, Trump’s impassioned base will hold the Regime’s court-appointed hacks accountable.  If he loses and Hillary Clinton proves to be the disastrous president that we know she will be, the contempt on the part of Trump supporters toward the faux journalists and commentators will only intensify.

An already polarized nation promises to grow still more divided and Hillary’s presidency promises to be a rocky one.  This the Deplorables will insure.

As for the GOP NeverTrumpists in Congress and their apologists in the so-called “conservative” (neoconservative) media, there’s perhaps no wing of the Regime for which the future is looking grimmer.  Election cycle after election cycle, the same con-men and women who have now turned their backs on their party’s presidential nominee—a man, mind you, who garnered more voter support than any Republican primary contestant in history—would spare no occasion to shame skeptical voters into supporting their candidates: Bob Dole, George W. Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney.

It’s now painfully clear that it is they who have no shame, for they’d prefer to give the election, and the country, over to Hillary Clinton and the Democrats rather than support the person who threatens to wreck their power structure.

So be it.

But the GOPers are sorely mistaken in thinking that it is their endorsement of Trump that will account for the reversal in their political fortunes.  It is, rather, their refusal to give Trump all of the backing that they would’ve provided to any other nominee that portends their downfall.

Do the NeverTrumpists seriously believe that Trump’s supporters will just return to business as usual in the event that Clinton becomes President? Do they think that the unprecedented number of voters who propelled Trump as far as he’s gone will forget their treachery, that they will ever again contribute a dime or a vote toward the Republican Party?

The GOP is destined to be in for a world of hurt.  So too, however, are those “conservative” (neoconservative) talk radio hosts, bloggers, writers, and Fox News chatterers who sought at every turn to safeguard the status quo, i.e. their own power.

The refusal to tell the truth when it needed to be told will be remembered by untold numbers of people. The D.C. and media Regimists think that if only Trump loses the election, they will be able to sleep comfortably again.  But as a colleague of mine put it today, Trump was but a spring shower.  There is a tsunami coming their way, a force of nature that will be all that much more catastrophic for the Regime’s interests if Trump loses, for it isn’t Trump, but the movement that he unleashed that will be the source of its greatest troubles.

#NeverTrump will give rise to #NeverGOP, or at least #NeverNeoconGOP.

The Trump phenomenon will continue—and grow.

By Jack Kerwick

5 Easy Ways to Follow Your Intuition

5 Easy Ways to Follow Your Intuition

Mind Control and Sex Slave Cathy Obrien swears when yet a child she was raped by Hillary Clinton

Mind Control and Sex Slave Cathy Obrien swears when yet a child she was raped by Hillary Clinton

Having sex with a child who is a mind controlled sex slave, goes well beyond stark evil and criminal in my book.  It is organized and planned hell for kids so that perverts can have their sexual fix.  According to Cathy Obrien and her former CIA husband, that is exactly what she experienced at the hands of Hillary Clinton back in 1978 in Arkansas.  Cathy was the typical sexually abused pawn for  MKULTRA – U.S. Government mind control scheme.  Mind control techniques, torture and sex abuse surrounded Cathy and she was exposed to rape, sex abuse and other tortures by many.  She says she was raped by Hillary Clinton.
During the 70s MKULTRA was connected to state agencies, hospitals and the like to target foster kids, those who were depressed – suicidal and in the system to get help or those who were victims of child sex abuse and tracked somewhere.  They were manipulated into the system, then forced to submit to MKULTRA research – sex, rape, drugs, torture…directed by former NAZI Doctors and Scientists.
Back to the Cathy Obrien horror show
Cathy says in 1978 in Arkansas, she observed that Bill Clinton was Bi sexual and had many encounters with men but her main sexual involvement when a child and sex slave was with Hillary who raped her.  She also referred to Hillary as bi sexual.  Just a few alternative media,   and  Alex Jones have mentioned this with a few more alternative blogs.  Naturally,   mainstream news pretends as usual not to hear this.  They couldn’t possibly hurt their Hillary with an MKULTRA survivor and her former CIA husband accusing Hillary of rape when she was a sex slave and child.  That is just too messy and sounds like a Trump set up.  This must get out to all quickly.
The November 8th  Presidential election is almost here and everything is at stake – our basic freedoms – especially for Christians and conservatives;  national  border security;  radical Islam getting a key to our front door or pushed back into oblivion; jobs,  morals economy, health care and much more in the balance.  The Trump path is freedom – power and healing.  The Hillary path is more corruption, destruction of morals, military, freedom and speech.  Now it seems we can add to the list more out of control sexual displays and crimes.  Everything is at stake for all — black, white, Hispanic, Christian, gay, straight, conservative and liberal.
This is the kind of headline that Hillary owned mainstream media runs from.  However, some alternative and real media is starting to get Cathy Obrien’s sworn statement about Hillary raping her out.  In my view,  this sworn testimony by Cathy Obrien and her former CIA Husband, add way more than the cherry on top of Hillary’s pile of treasonous and corruption sewage during her 30 year career.  It is more like Godzilla just sat on top of her pile with the cherry in his teeth.
We have heard the occasional rumors of lesbian activities…but who really knows.  The big, pervert card in Hillary’s deck has always seemingly been her sex addicted husband Bill, who has raped and assaulted all kinds of women over the years – You know,  the women that 99% of the media has called names or ignored since the Clintons are so protected and even worshiped.
…but apparently Hillary has been competing with Bill in the sex criminal and perversion department for as long as Bill – her Olympian -pervert husband.  Naturally, in response to these bold rape allegations, Hillary will repeat her usual response:  “I don’t recall”  “This is a Trump lie and set up”  “This is a set up by the right”   “Cathy is insane and has been paid off.”
Has Hillary ever admitted any real crimes against Bill’s victims, their Foundation, or dangerous and compromised-illegal emails?  Did Hillary ever admit the endless calls for help from Ambassador Stevens and his team while telling him and the military who could help to stand down?  “What does it matter anyway?”
Over the last 16 years I have researched and interviewed survivors of mind control and talked with mind control sex slaves who were essentially sold into it and kept at various locations through out America.  In the early 1970s Nazi inspired MKULTRA projects and subprojects of mind control were in full swing.  Some of these were subprojects 8, 10, 63 and 66.  The easy targets for more mind control, sex and drug experiments were those with mental illness, kids who were depressed or suicidal, kids who were fractured due to sex abuse already and in the foster system.  They were targeted, taken and held.
I interviewed mind control survivor Karen Wetmore who wrote her amazing story in her book – Surviving Evil.  I interviewed her many times on my former national radio show about her horrific treatment in the Vermont State Hospital and related facilities.  It is a miracle she ever survived but she reported regular rapes, drugs put into her, isolation from family and friends and Nazi like horrors just to see how her mind would handle things.
MKULTRA was Government controlled, funded and had a huge perverted reach backed by former NAZI doctors and scientists to continue their experiments in the U.S. they had started in Germany.  Unbelievable – yet true.
Does it matter America in this election whether you are male or female, Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative, that survivor of MKULTRA mind control Cathy Obrien remembers and has documented that Hillary Clinton raped her when she was a child?  If this doesn’t matter to you and you still vote for her, you are already dead and maybe the country also.  Do what is right for you and America because Hillary Clinton sure won’t.

The Science of Silencing

The Science of Silencing

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Authority & Expectations

Authority &; Expectations 


Smart and provocative young veteran, Wray Harris, unlocks the sufferings served by the Iraq war.

". . . deeply moving. This close up of PTSD is something every American should see. Mr. Harris impresses me as an intelligent and thoughtful person going through hell yet willing to help others understand the evils of war." - - Veterans for Peace Chapter 1011
Posted February 22, 2013

Truth is, the military is full of Harrises, eager patriots irrevocably transformed by meaningless combat. In an overnight conversation between two who met at a demonstration (at which Harris was speaking) Authority and Expectations walks the wiretapped road to Wray's apostasy. Fourteen months he fought in Iraq, invading, interrogating, deteriorating. At twenty-four he doesn't reflect, he flashes. From step-dad beating his mom to death-metal concerts to a drunken call to the army recruiter at 3 a.m. Now beer in hand, pipe in pocket, cigarette in mouth he staggers through remnants and craters with the clairvoyance that only comes to a man of war.

With hyper-intensity Harris pulls the distant into view, depicting our inflictions with verses of depth and curses of intellect. Make no mistake: one man's doing is another man's undoing: an overdose, a diagnosis, a discharge. . . . "Dead politicians," he utters, "not dead soldiers." Footage of the 20 year old in tears on base; of gunfights and body scoops; of a Humvee on assault; of a mosque under attack, the depth of his depictions bombing our senses till our inner pipes, like those of Baghdad, are ruptured, the sewage oozing from opened ears.

". . . superlative. . . No bullshit. Nothing else like it out there. Limitless respect to Wray Harris and the producer for a magnificent accomplishment."
- Traveling Soldier

". . . the most raw, intense, honest, brave, unsettling piece of creative work - and offering on Wray's part - that I have, honestly, ever seen."
- Ground Zero Center for Non-violent Action

"Veterans that see the light through the darkness have much to offer."
- Libya Truth Movement

"Wray is a powerful speaker. . . making some incredibly good points. . . damn nice work." - Rogue Valley Peace Veterans

". . . deeply moving. This close up of PTSD is something every American should see. Mr. Harris impresses me as an intelligent and thoughtful person going through hell yet willing to help others understand the evils of war."
- Veterans for Peace Chapter 1011

The Elite "Have No Idea" - Society Is Near The Breaking Point

The Elite "Have No Idea" - Society Is Near The Breaking Point

What I find most surprising today is that the insiders and the elite have no idea what is percolating just beneath the surface.  Okay, maybe their arrogance actually produces its own fog, so it should not come as a surprise that they are blinded. They do not look at the calendar, which, if one really looks, says "1788" on it.  Something is close.  Very close.  Society is near the breaking point.

My own experience is that Hillary’s so-called Deplorables are actually the most reserved, most polite, and most honest demographic in the country. They are more informed, more self-reliant, and among other things, better armed.  Regarding their arms, they are incredibly responsible, and not the source of the violence for which the implement, and not the person, is too often blamed.  The Deplorables have the longest fuse.  It is, however, a fuse.

Alt Left, on the other hand, are the Neo Fascists and Neo Neocons.  It is Alt Left that thinks Free Speech means THEIR speech only.  It is Alt Left that needs 'safe spaces' and wants to enforce thought crime.
It is Alt Left, and its media lapdog sites, that is heavily into censorship of ideas that diverge from their approved ideology.  It is Alt Left that champions regime change and ratcheting up the rhetoric against Russia. It is Alt Left that believes it has an inherent right, even an obligation, to lie and obfuscate if it serves their greater purpose.

Perhaps most significant is that it is Alt Left who so quickly resorts to violence and vandalism when confronted with people and ideas with which it takes exception.  Never has that been as clear as in this election cycle.

The Deplorables, however, are not possessed of infinite patience. Like a capacitor, there is a charge building, and at some point it will be released into the circuitry of society.
The media and other insiders believe themselves to be immune.  That thought no doubt results from being immersed inside a cocoon where dissonant voices are not allowed.  When the levee breaks, or the capacitor releases its charge, they are going to be gob smacked.
Precious few of them are anywhere near as immune as they believe themselves to be.  Additionally, what they might think, or hope, is their support, their security, their safe space, doesn't really exist.
Most of society's guardians, whether they are law enforcement or military, are card-carrying members of the Deplorables.
France was similarly constructed in the late 1780s.  The elite were isolated only in thought, not in reality.  Their protection was of a Potemkin Village nature: not actually there, but merely a facade that gave them false comfort.

They paid dearly for their arrogance and ignorance.
History may not repeat, but it does rhyme.  The calendar really does seem to say 1788, so 1789---and 1792--are not as far off as some would like to believe.

This is not a call to arms, but it is a call to reality.  Ignore it at your own peril.

Some may see these words as a threat.  They are not.  They are, however, a warning, and a warning from someone who is a student of history.

Every society eventually reaches a breaking point.  Ours is nearly there.  Some of those who might feel threatened, the so-called elite and insiders, think that they can buy protection as easily as they can buy a Gulfstream.  How naïve!  Who are the private security contractors?  Who are the various SOGs?  Like law enforcement and the rest of the military, they are the Deplorables.  The Deplorables will take your money, but you will not take their lives.  Better said, they won’t give up their lives for you or your family.  The security you believe you have purchased is an illusion.  Make that delusion.  Best to get that out front here and now.
Some who feel threatened, or nervous, might fall back on the tired adage of ‘We gave them (the Deplorables) everything; what do they think they will do without us?’  Well, the use of ‘we’ is arrogant, because those who have actually produced something of value are few and far between.  Industrialists, for lack of a better term, are those who produced for society things of lasting value.  There are few true industrialists today, and many who still remain have shipped their production overseas, jacking up the compensation of bonus-based execs, but contributing to the hollowing out of America.  The true industrialists did produce the cars, trucks, machine tools, generators, servers and even computers.  They produced lifesaving medicines and treatments.  They made steel plants and built railroads.

They produced jobs.  They even produced the guns that the Deplorables have by the hundreds of millions. The Deplorables recognize that entire contribution.

Mark Zuckerberg, however, is not Henry Ford.  Jack Dorsey is not Andrew Carnegie.  Mark Benioff is not John Rockefeller.  Lloyd Blankfein is not John Pierpont Morgan.  (Elon Musk might turn out to be someone of significance, if he is allowed to fail and is forgiven for it.  Time will tell.)  The old Robber Barons, despite their faults, did produce things of lasting value.
What did these new ‘titans of industry’ give us?  Facebook?  Snapchat?

Twitter?  They gave us banality and pabulum.  Some embraced it, despite its triteness, perhaps because all other meaning had already been lost, like America’s exported jobs.  These new titans, Neo Titans, did little more than help dumb down society.  They made America less productive, less curious, more pedestrian.  Maybe they think they gave us the internet, but credit for that goes to DARPA, which is to say the military, which is to say the Deplorables.  The Neo Titans gave America nothing, at least nothing positive.  Social networking?  Gaming?  Selfies?
The Deplorables can live without the silly oxymoron called social networking, which, as anyone who looks at it objectively knows, is anything but social.  We don’t care what two thousand of our fake friends had for breakfast, or what Andrew Ross Sorkin thinks of the latest Presidential debate.  He probably thinks we do.  After all, he has ‘Twitter Followers’, whom he assumes live and die by his every Tweet.  We can live without that.  I wonder if his ego can?  He, and those of his ilk, are merely Kim Kardashians without knowing it.  They are the talentless dishing out white bread to the emotionally and spiritually starved.

Some might think this is all Trump’s fault.  Again, that shows a degree of ignorance and naïveté which characterizes the elite.  Trump is a symptom, not a cause.  He might even be a salve, as the changes he could bring might defuse some of the current anger.

On the other hand, Hillary is a lit match in a room of dynamite.  She, like many of the self-important, thinks her very existence is a favor to the rest of us.  She epitomizes the absolute worst of what America has become.  Above the law, wealthy not through accomplishment, but through influence peddling only, and a bull in a china shop in terms of her effect on both the country and the world---and I apologize to bulls for that analogy.  The world is more unstable because of her.

America is less safe because of her.  Russia and the US---the two largest nuclear powers---are more at odds because of her.  With her in power, we will reach the breaking point at home and internationally, perhaps leading to ‘accidental’ nuclear war, as the heightened rhetoric impacts clear thinking.  Society is more stratified because of her.  Race relations have deteriorated because of her (and Obama).

There are few current ills in society and in geopolitics that cannot be laid at her feet, at least to some extent.  The Great Deceiver to many, who exhibits an astonishing aversion to truth telling, is enough to make even an agnostic wonder if the anti-Christ hasn’t finally arrived for its three and a half years of rule.

A recently hacked email of John Podesta finds him saying “she (Hillary) has begun to hate everyday Americans”.  No doubt the same feelings were voiced by Nicolas Ceaucescu.  It turned out the feeling was mutual.

Elect Hillary, and continue with business as usual, and it is likely this warning will become an epitaph for the America we know.  Society may collapse regardless, because the rot is already very great, but she will hasten the day of reckoning.

The Deplorables have already considered what is coming.  They are as prepared as they can be.  Years of decline have enabled many to build their survival skills, to make due with less, to build real communities where one man can trust another, to discover what is truly important and what can and should be salvaged from this society.

Outside of that demographic, however, people are stark naked.  They are vulnerable in ways they simply cannot imagine.  They are unprepared and unskilled for what will matter most.  They are cannon fodder living on borrowed time.

History is full of examples of this sort of collapse.  We humans have always rolled along a sine wave of progress and decline, of civility and social unrest.  We think we have outgrown the sort of mayhem with which the history books are full, but that thought stems from recency bias.  Most of history---the vast majority---is not peaceful.

Societies are not, on average, stable and safe.  Thomas Hobbes knew that quite well, as evidenced in his most famous quote.  Humanity is likely on the verge of returning to the mean, and the mean is exactly that:  mean.  In case some have forgotten their Hobbes:  solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Have a nice day.

Let the People Decide Their Future

The announcement last week by the United States of the largest military aid package in its history – to Israel – was a win for both sides.Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu could boast that his lobbying had boosted aid from $3.1 billion a year to $3.8bn – a 22 per cent increase – for a decade starting in 2019.
Mr Netanyahu has presented this as a rebuff to those who accuse him of jeopardising Israeli security interests with his government’s repeated affronts to the White House.
In the past weeks alone, defence minister Avigdor Lieberman has compared last year’s nuclear deal between Washington and Iran with the 1938 Munich pact, which bolstered Hitler; and Mr Netanyahu has implied that US opposition to settlement expansion is the same as support for the “ethnic cleansing” of Jews.
American president Barack Obama, meanwhile, hopes to stifle his own critics who insinuate that he is anti-Israel. The deal should serve as a fillip too for Hillary Clinton, the Democratic party’s candidate to succeed Mr Obama in November’s election.
In reality, however, the Obama administration has quietly punished Mr Netanyahu for his misbehaviour. Israeli expectations of a $4.5bn-a-year deal were whittled down after Mr Netanyahu stalled negotiations last year as he sought to recruit Congress to his battle against the Iran deal.
In fact, Israel already receives roughly $3.8bn – if Congress’s assistance on developing missile defence programmes is factored in. Notably, Israel has been forced to promise not to approach Congress for extra funds.
The deal takes into account neither inflation nor the dollar’s depreciation against the shekel.
A bigger blow still is the White House’s demand to phase out a special exemption that allowed Israel to spend nearly 40 per cent of aid locally on weapon and fuel purchases. Israel will soon have to buy all its armaments from the US, ending what amounted to a subsidy to its own arms industry.
Nonetheless, Washington’s renewed military largesse – in the face of almost continual insults – inevitably fuels claims that the Israeli tail is wagging the US dog. Even The New York Times has described the aid package as “too big”.
Since the 1973 war, Israel has received at least $100bn in military aid, with more assistance hidden from view. Back in the 1970s, Washington paid half of Israel’s military budget. Today it still foots a fifth of the bill, despite Israel’s economic success.
But the US expects a return on its massive investment. As the late Israeli politician-general Ariel Sharon once observed, ­Israel has been a US “aircraft carrier” in the Middle East, acting as the regional bully and carrying out operations that benefit Washington.
Almost no one blames the US for Israeli attacks that wiped out Iraq’s and Syria’s nuclear programmes. A nuclear-armed Iraq or Syria would have deterred later US-backed moves at regime overthrow, as well as countering the strategic advantage Israel derives from its own nuclear arsenal.
In addition, Israel’s US-sponsored military prowess is a triple boon to the US weapons industry, the country’s most powerful lobby. Public funds are siphoned off to let Israel buy goodies from American arms makers. That, in turn, serves as a shop window for other customers and spurs an endless and lucrative game of catch-up in the rest of the Middle East.
The first F-35 fighter jets to arrive in Israel in December – their various components produced in 46 US states – will increase the clamour for the cutting-edge warplane.
Israel is also a “front-line laboratory”, as former Israeli army negotiator Eival Gilady admitted at the weekend, that develops and field-tests new technology Washington can later use itself.
The US is planning to buy back the missile interception system Iron Dome – which neutralises battlefield threats of retaliation – it largely paid for. Israel works closely too with the US in developing cyber­warfare, such as the Stuxnet worm that damaged Iran’s civilian nuclear programme.
But the clearest message from Israel’s new aid package is one delivered to the Palestinians: Washington sees no pressing strategic interest in ending the occupation. It stood up to Mr Netanyahu over the Iran deal but will not risk a damaging clash over Palestinian statehood.
Some believe that Mr Obama signed the aid package to win the credibility necessary to overcome his domestic Israel lobby and pull a rabbit from the hat: an initiative, unveiled shortly before he leaves office, that corners Mr Netanyahu into making peace.
Hopes have been raised by an expected meeting at the United Nations in New York on Wednesday. But their first talks in 10 months are planned only to demonstrate unity to confound critics of the aid deal.
If Mr Obama really wanted to pressure Mr Netanyahu, he would have used the aid agreement as leverage. Now Mr Netanyahu need not fear US financial retaliation, even as he intensifies effective annexation of the West Bank.
Mr Netanyahu has drawn the right lesson from the aid deal – he can act against the Palestinians with continuing US impunity.
- See more at:
Stop All Intervention in Syria and Let the People Decide Their Future

It's hard to listen to parliamentary debates on foreign policy without a growing sense of disbelief.
We saw one again this week, this time over the horrific situation in Aleppo. Most politicians suffer a kind of selective amnesia over past interventions. They bemoan the fact that David Cameron lost the vote to bomb Syria back in 2013, and claim that things would be better there now had MPs voted to intervene.
But they ignore the record of such interventions and the scathing criticisms of them from official bodies, including their own parliamentary select committees.
Three separate reports in the past three months have made clear that those interventions did more harm than good, that they have worsened the situation where they took place, and that two of the previous three British prime ministers – Tony Blair and David Cameron - were very much criticised for their role in the campaigning for war.
The Chilcot report over Iraq was the most scathing, but less reported was the foreign affairs committee report on the bombing of Libya in 2011, which started as the imposition of a no-fly zone but rapidly became a war for regime change, with 30,000 killed by bombing and a civil war still raging today.
The decision to intervene in Syria last December has also faced criticism, this time by the defence select committee.

Pass the blame

Little of this is referred to in the debates. Instead when your interventions over the past 15 years have failed, what do you do? Well, blame the organisation which opposed them in the first place.
So Stop the War is berated for not marching. Ann Clwyd MP, a hawk back in 2003, is demanding that two million demonstrate outside the Russian embassy – even though she bitterly opposed those who did march then. Some even claim that Stop the War is culpable over Syria, even though it opposes all bombing and wants peace.
It should not need to be said that Stop the War is not bombing or intervening in the war, it is an anti-war organisation.
Why does the organisation come under such attack? Because Stop the War has called it right over these wars, and is calling it right over Syria.
No one can fail to be moved by the endless war into which the people of Syria are now plunged. But it is precisely because we value human life that we oppose military intervention there. A no-fly zone will escalate the war, not end it, and there will be more civilian casualties not less, just as there were in Libya.

Syria's future for Syrians alone to decide

We did not stop the war in Iraq, but we have helped to shift opinion in this country against further wars. It could be argued that Chilcot would never have happened without an anti-war movement. Jeremy Corbyn’s two victories as Labour leader also are in part the result of a strong anti-war and peace movement.
Stop the War's position is clear: we oppose all bombing in Syria, including by the Syrian regime and Russia, but also by the US, UK, Saudi Arabia and other powers intervening there. We call for an end to all outside intervention. All supply of arms should stop.
We do not take a position on the internal politics of Syria, and believe that this is a question for the Syrian people alone.
The attacks on us come in the main from people who do not like our opposition to wars. In every instance, we have been accused of supporting those whom our government opposes. So we have been accused of supporting the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, Gaddafi and now Assad and, more specifically, Russia.

For the record, we do not support Russia or any other intervening power. And we regard these attacks on us as the sort of witch hunt that tries to destroy a legitimate criticism of government by saying that we are allied to a foreign power. It is despicable and untrue, and a smokescreen to hide the myriad failings of this 15-year war on terror.

Time to change course

The danger in the Middle East is that we are now seeing great power rivalry played out in the region, especially in Syria and Iraq. This is already causing untold misery for the people of those countries, the growth of terrorism and an instability which can spill into a much bigger regional war.

Those like Jeremy Corbyn who have taken a strong stance against successive governments’ wars should be congratulated, not attacked. Those who backed military intervention refuse to honestly account for their actions. Their policies were defeated in parliament three years ago when nearly every Labour MP voted against bombing Syria.

Last year a much bigger minority of Labour MPs voted to bomb not Assad, but the Islamic State (IS) group. The British role in this subsequently has been marginal, and now all the talk is about Assad, not IS.

We live in a very dangerous world. The US presidential election will almost certainly be followed by more calls for military intervention, not less. The attacks on Stop the War cannot be seen in isolation from wider politics, both in the US and here, where Jeremy Corbyn is putting forward a genuinely different foreign policy based on peace not war.
This is not the time for more intervention. It is the time for a recognition of government failures and a commitment to change course.

Unfortunately, with a foreign secretary like Boris Johnson, the Stop the War Coalition will be around for some time to come. 

- Lindsey German is convenor of the Stop the War Coalition and co-author of A People's History of London

The Warnings of a New World War

The Warnings of a New World War

The U.S.-Russia confrontation over Ukraine and now Syria is far more dangerous than is understood by mainstream U.S. analysts as Russia lays down clear warnings that are mostly being ignored.

In an interview with the Bild newspaper on Oct. 8, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who is known for his cautious rhetoric, described the present international situation in the following woeful terms: “unfortunately it is an illusion to believe this is the old Cold War. The new times are different; they are more dangerous. Previously, the world was divided, but Moscow and Washington knew each other’s red lines and respected them. In a world with many regional conflicts and dwindling influence of the great powers, the world becomes more unpredictable.”
For these reasons, said Steinmeier, “The USA and Russia must continue talking with each other.” He concluded his appeal with fairly balanced recommendations to resolve the humanitarian crisis in east Aleppo, urging both Russia and the other powers to apply their influence with their clients on the ground.

Sad to say, this call to reason fell on deaf ears. On the same day, a U.S. State Department spokesman explained to journalists Washington’s decision over the weekend to end the joint peace process with Moscow, saying that there was “nothing left to talk about with the Russians.”

Meanwhile, the Russian side took as the last straw this unilateral and trumpeted decision of the Americans to bury the deal signed on Sept. 9 between Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov that had taken 14 hours to negotiate and was seen as a triumph of cooperation versus confrontation.
De facto, from the Russian view, that deal was sabotaged on Sept. 17 by the Pentagon when U.S. and coalition aircraft bombed a Syrian government military outpost at Deir Ezzor killing more than 60 Syrian soldiers. And de facto, the Russians had suspended the implementation of the ceasefire on Sept. 23 when they renewed heavy bombing of east Aleppo in close collaboration with the Syrian air force and ground units. Now that the U.S. had formalized the end of cooperation over Syria, Russia set out its own full-blooded response which it called a “radical change in relations” between the two countries.

Several of the components of the Russian response of Oct. 3 and over the week to follow were noted in the U.S. and Western mainstream media. We heard about the decision to cancel the bilateral convention concluded with the U.S. in 2000 on reprocessing excess weapons-grade plutonium for electricity generation. This was widely considered to be of marginal importance, since the U.S. had been unable to implement its part of the bargain for lack of appropriate conversion installations and costs of upwards of $18 billion if it did what was necessary.
We heard about Russia holding civil defense exercises to provide for 40 million citizens, though no one could make much sense of it. We heard about the announcement of the Russian Ministry of Defense that it now has brought to Syria and made operational its most advanced air defense missile systems, the S300 and S400, but Pentagon spokesmen professed to be dumbfounded and asked rhetorically what was the purpose of the move.
Finally, we all heard this week that Russia has officially deployed its hypersonic, potentially nuclear-tipped, 500 kilometer-range Iskander ground-to-ground missiles in its Kaliningrad enclave on the Baltic Sea sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania. The Polish military officials immediately expressed dismay, feeling under threat and said they were putting all their defense facilities on alert. But Pentagon spokesmen said there was no reason to view this deployment as different from the last deployment in Kaliningrad two years ago, which was just a training exercise.

Playing Down the Danger

From the foregoing, it would appear that the U.S. government was keen to play down to the general public the significance of the separately noted Russian moves last week. It is in this context that one must appreciate what an unofficial but authoritative Russian state television program last Sunday night did to add a few more important dots, to connect them all and to interpret for laymen what is the significance of the Russian démarches.
The state television program on the Rossiya 1 channel, Vesti nedeli (News of the Week), is presented by Dmitri Kiselyov. This two-hour show on prime time is the single most widely watched news broadcast in Russia with tens of millions of viewers. However, in cases like the Oct. 9 show, the real hoped-for audience of the first half-hour segment was in Washington, D.C., where its intent was to pour cold water over hotheads in the Pentagon and CIA – and bring the American leadership back to its senses.
Dmitri Kiselyov is not merely the anchorman of Vesti nedeli. He is also the boss of all news and information programming on state radio and television. He is tough and wears his patriotism on his sleeve. We may assume that what he says has been approved by the Kremlin.
Because of the importance of the message Kiselyov was delivering, I am going to quote heavily from my transcript of his narrative, only making minor cuts:

“This past week relations between the USA and Russia went through a sharp but expected turn. To bend over backwards further in the face of [American] lies has lost all sense and is simply harmful. By bending over backwards we mean looking for diplomatic compromises.

“We held endless expectations that the USA will finally separate the non-terrorists from the terrorists [in Syria]. We waited more than a year for this. But it is clear they did not want to. They are taking us and the whole world for fools. America is working on the side of Al Nusra [Al Qaeda’s Syrian affiliate], providing them with diplomatic cover; providing them with additional arms; helping them by their supposedly mistaken bombing of a Syrian army position.
“See the outbursts of anti-Russian statements in the U.S. mass media. If we continue with the Americans, our very presence in Syria will lose sense. Instead, working with the legal Syrian government, we can rid the country of terrorists, thereby ensuring security of the Middle Eastern region, Russia and Europe.”
Kiselyov continued: “Those who want to can join us. The U.S. seemed to want to join, then thought again and cut their military cooperation with Russia over Syria on Monday, with one exception, the channel of communication to avoid military clashes in Syria remains in force. For the time being.

“Formally the situation returned to where it was before Sept. 9 when Kerry and Lavrov reached their agreement on a truce. But then [U.S. Defense Secretary] Ashton Carter entered the picture. He opened a second front. He forced Kerry to fight on two fronts. If Kerry previously thought he was competing with the Russians, now he came under “friendly fire” from the Pentagon.

“American forces directly bombed a Syrian military outpost. This was no mistake. It was coordinated with the terrorists, who followed up with an attack. Then there came a camouflaged attack on the humanitarian convoy near Aleppo [Sept. 20]. Finally, it became clear to Moscow that diplomacy is merely a ‘service’ for the Pentagon. Kerry, in intellectual style, justifies the actions of the Pentagon. Often, post factum.

“We will review tonight the radical changes in our relations with America. This includes the dispatch to the region of three of our cruise missile vessels with Kalibr on board. The roll-out in Syria of additional air defense systems S300. The dispatch to Egypt of 5,000 of our paratroopers. The tearing up of our agreements with America in the atomic sphere. And the civil defense exercise of the past week which involved 200,000 civil defense personnel covering 40 million population. To my recollection such a constellation of events never before took place.”

Terrorists and Hostages

Kiselyov went on: “The center of attention has been east Aleppo, still in control of terrorists with hundreds of thousands of civilians kept hostage as a human shield. They execute people who want to leave. We cannot tolerate this anymore. The terrorists are not capable of abiding by agreements. The Syrian army is carrying out a storm operation.

“There is so much lying and shrieking going on in the world about this. … It’s a serious matter that the U.S. is looking at Russia’s actions to combat terrorists in Syria as a threat to its own exceptionalism. The scenario is not developing according to the U.S. plan, so what is the sense of all the claims to U.S. domination and leadership. It looks as if Barack Obama will leave office before Bashar Assad. And their nasty tricks against Russia, the sanctions, aren’t working…

“To be sure, Washington has loudly announced that it is shifting now to the so-called Plan B. Formally there are no details. But in general terms, everyone understands what we are talking about. Plan B is when America applies in Syria direct military force. It is not hard to guess against whom, against Bashar Assad, the government army, and that means against the armed forces of Russia, who are present in Syria on legal grounds.
“Can we exclude such a variation? No. We cannot exclude provocations to justify the start of war, as happened in the past in the two world wars. The Vietnam War also began with a provocation organized by the Americans. See the false pretenses for invading Iraq and the action in Libya. U.S. ignored international law, decided there can be no obstacles in the path of their assaults.”
Kiselyov continued: “Moscow reacted calmly to Plan B. Russia saddles up slowly, but then rides fast. To understand how Russian-American relations have just quickly changed directions, we have to rewind and go back to the start of the week. Let us now scrupulously go over events since Monday.

“First I want to direct your attention to the very public speech of [Russian President Vladimir] Putin. He spoke more quietly and more slowly than usual. Formally it was to open the session of the new 7th Duma. But it was addressed to the very core issues of our souls and minds. His words were not about draft laws, but to the essence of the moment. Putin considered it important to talk about the general basis of support. He spoke about unity of the people as an essential element for the existence of our country. Strength is essential to maintaining our statehood.
“At this Duma session, Putin introduced draft law to halt the convention on plutonium with the USA.”

Kiselyov here makes an association between Putin’s speech to the Duma and the draft law halting the convention on plutonium that would not be obvious to outsiders. Still more important, he called attention to the contents of that draft law, beginning with the reason given for this event, namely what is called a “radical change in circumstances, the emergence of a threat to strategic stability as a result of hostile actions of the United States of America in relation to the Russian Federation and the inability of the United States of America to ensure execution of the obligations it assumed to reprocess the excess weapons grade plutonium in accordance with the Agreement and the protocols to the Agreement.”

Kiselyov then moved to the all-important Point 2 of the draft law. The text was projected onto the television screen, with its provisions highlighted in yellow as Kiselyov read from it. The highlighted passages are as follows:

“The validity of the Agreement and protocols to the Agreement can be renewed after the elimination by the United States of America of the causes which have led to a radical change in the circumstances which existed on the day of the coming into force of the Agreement and the protocols to the Agreement on condition:

“1) that the military infrastructure and numbers of the contingent of troops of the United States of America stationed on the territories of member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) which entered NATO after 1 September 2000 be reduced to their levels on the day of coming into force of the Agreement and protocols to the Agreement

“2) that the United States of America renounces its hostile policy with respect to the Russian Federation which must be expressed:
“a) by the repeal of the 2012 law of the United States of America (Sergei Magnitsky law) and the repeal of provisions of the 2014 law of the United States of America in support of  freedom of Ukraine directed against Russia

“b) by the cancellation of all sanctions introduced by the United States of America with respect to separate subjects of the Russian Federation – Russian individuals and legal entities
“c) compensation of damages borne by the Russian Federation as a result of the sanctions indicated in line ’b’ of this point, including losses from the introduction of necessary counter-sanctions against the United States of America

“d) presentation by the United States of America of a clear plan for irreversible reprocessing of plutonium coming under the scope of the Agreement.”

A Breathtaking Ultimatum 

Kiselyov rightly called these provisions an “Ultimatum” addressed to the White House. Their scope is breathtaking. But the Kremlin’s message to Washington was action, not just words.
Kiselyov explained that on Tuesday the government stopped an ongoing program of scientific contacts with the U.S. in the nuclear field. On the same day it cancelled a program of cooperation between Rosatom and the U.S. Department of Energy over nuclear reactors.

Then, as Kiselyov noted, the Russians “moved from the brakes to the gas pedal.” They dispatched three missile bearing naval vessels from the Black Sea fleet to the Eastern Mediterranean as a back-up in case the U.S. proceeds on Plan B. These are equipped with two types of missiles: the Kalibr cruise missile which may be nuclear tipped and has a 2,600 kilometer range for striking ground targets plus the supersonicOniks for attacking ships.

Also on what he chose to call “Black Tuesday,” the Russian government confirmed that it has installed its S300 air defense system in Syria. For the explanation, Kiselyov pulled up video recordings of the televised statement by the chief of the press and information service, the Russian Federation Ministry of Defense Igor Konashenkov, who was responding to questions about the Syrian campaign.

Konashenkov said the air defense was installed because of U.S. and French threats to impose a “no fly zone” and because of the lessons learned from the U.S. coalition strike against Syrian forces at Deir Ezzor on Sept. 17. Konashenkov stressed that there will likely be no time for any hot-line discussions with Americans about stealth aircraft or incoming missiles: they will be shot down, “whatever the dilettantes” in American military circles may think.

He explained that Russian military are in settled areas across Syria performing humanitarian work and dealing with local Syrian militia who are laying down their arms under Russian-brokered deals. Therefore, any U.S. air strikes in Syria will likely also hit Russian forces, which is utterly unacceptable.

Next, Kiselyov reminded his audience, on Wednesday, Russia officially notified Washington that it deems the missile defense installations that the United States has built in Romania and is building in Poland are in violation of the convention on intermediate-range missiles since they can be used for offensive as well as defensive rockets.

Russia is not presently withdrawing from the convention on intermediate-range missiles, which was the single biggest arms control agreement of the Reagan-Gorbachev years, but it is preparing the way for abrogation at its choosing. This was the context for Moscow’s announcement on the same day that they have installed their Iskander missile system in Kaliningrad. The suggestion is that this is permanent, not linked to any exercises.
During the same week, the Russian Ministry of Defense announced an unprecedented military exercise in Egypt with dispatch there of 5,000 paratroopers equipped with new, desert-condition uniforms and a new design parachute.

Russian Overseas Bases

According to Kiselyov, Russian Deputy Minister of Defense Pankov said his ministry is reviewing the question of reestablishing military bases in Cuba and Vietnam. And, on the anniversary of its launch into space of the first Sputnik, Moscow celebrated the Day of the Rocket Corps by showing clips of recent “awesome” rocket launches.

Summing up, Kiselyov acknowledged that all these events give the impression of a highly charged atmosphere. They are, he said, all the consequence of America’s steady campaign of expanding NATO, its renunciation of the ABM treaty, its color revolutions, its vilification of Russia, and its information war based on lies. These unfriendly acts had to be a stop.

He asked rhetorically: is this dangerous? To which he responded in the affirmative.

And yet, if Russia is morally and physically prepared for war with the United States to defend what it sees as its national interests, including in Syria, Kiselyov ended the half-hour segment of his weekly news wrap-up on a non-belligerent note. He said the message of the Russian government was its preparedness for the worst while it hopes for better outcomes. He quoted Dmitri Peskov, Putin’s press secretary, who insisted that Russia is always ready for cooperation.

Bad as the enumeration of Moscow’s “radical change in relations” with the United States sounds, the overview of Russian actions and intentions on the Kiselyov program was not exhaustive. In the same week, there were leaks of Russian plans to establish what never existed in the Cold War, a naval base in Egypt, which it is said would support their operations in the Western Mediterranean.
It bears mention that the whole subject of military bases abroad came up on another prime-time flagship program of Russian state television, the Oct. 9 edition of “Sunday Evening with Vladimir Soloviev,” the most popular and respected talk show of the same Rossiya 1channel.

In a departure from common practice, this edition featured only Russian panelists, mostly of high standing.  The single highest-rated politician panelist was Irina Yarovaya, the tough-as-nails and very smart Duma deputy known best as the author of what Edward Snowden called the Big Brother law this past July. Yarovaya was newly named as Deputy Chair of the State Duma and opened the show, which focused on U.S.-Russian relations and comparative military strength.

Yarovaya remarked on how in 1992 the U.S. defense budget was 77 times greater than Russia’s whereas last year it was just 10 times greater. Today, she noted, the U.S. accounts for 36 percent of total global military expenditures while Russia represents 4 percent. Why does the United States need this disproportionately sized military establishment? Answer: to dominate the political landscape. In this context, she explained, Russia now is throwing cold water on that notion of domination.

At this point, the second-ranking politician on the show entered the debate with an important qualification. Vladimir Zhirinovsky is the leader of the nationalist LDPR party, which did remarkably well in the September elections and was given the Duma committee chairmanship of foreign relations as a reward, another detail of Russian political life that has gone virtually unnoticed in U.S. and Western commentary.

Zhirinovsky insisted that the correlation of military capabilities is more favorable to Russia than the gross figures suggest. After all, he explained, a large chunk of the U.S. defense budget goes on toilet paper, sausages and similar housekeeping expenses in support of its 700 foreign bases.

Notwithstanding that caustic remark about bases generally and eyes-open understanding that such force projection is also debilitating, Zhirinovsky later in the program suggested that Russia would do well to establish 100 overseas bases.
To understand properly what this question of possible Russian military bases overseas means, we have to recall that, in the not so distant past, Vladimir Putin pointed to the country’s having no overseas bases as a distinguishing point setting Russia apart from superpowers. We have no ambition to be a superpower, he said then.
The Risky U.S. ‘War Party’

Those in the U.S. “war party” who talk about Putin’s dream of reestablishing the Soviet Union are repeating endlessly complete nonsense. But there is a dream, a very new dream in Moscow which did not exist until  the present direct and existential confrontation with the U.S. that Russia will be understood to be not just a great power but a superpower with global interests.
In this sense, by presenting Russia with hostility and enormous challenges, the United States has been creating the very Russia it fears.
All of the information that I have used in this commentary are open source. The television programs are all accessible as they are to the U.S. intelligence officers stationed in the U.S. embassy in Moscow. They are also accessible to any Russian-speaking analysts in Langley who happen to be interested since they are posted within 24 hours on
Moreover, the CIA has its own agent taking part in the prime-time talk shows several days a week. He is a welcome and paid guest of the Russian state television because of his outstanding Russian language skills and his defense of the policy line coming from Washington, which makes him the American that Russian viewers love to hate.
In this capacity, he rubs shoulders regularly with the leading Russian politicians on the shows and has a chance, in the breaks, to put to them the kind of question that one such politician said he raised a week ago: “Will there be a war?”
If the U.S. intelligence establishment is doing its job professionally, and we must assume that is the case, then they have been briefing President Obama and the two presidential candidates on the developments in U.S.-Russian relations that I have outlined above.
In that case, a puzzling and scandalous question arises:  why has the President not said a word about the “radical change in relations” with Russia? And why is it that neither candidate when asked about how to respond to the killings in east Aleppo on Debate Two, that very same evening, on Oct. 9, were clueless.

Indeed, the remarks of Hillary Clinton to the effect that the United States must stand up to the Russians and impose a “no-fly zone” in Syria missed the point that to do so now will mean destruction of U.S. aircraft and naval vessels, or, in other words, the onset of World War III. Either she and her policy team do not have their eye on the ball or they are playing a reckless game.

For his part, Donald Trump came out marginally better on the issue of what to do about east Aleppo. He said that, as he understands, it’s lost already. That appraisal is much closer to reality.
The end result of the official silence in the U.S. about Russia’s message of defiance and about its military wherewithal in place in Syria to defend what it construes as its national interest is that as a nation the U.S. is flying blind.
Gilbert Doctorow