Sunday, November 07, 2021

Simply madness

This sounds about right, including the early anticipatory (((purity testing))) of the new fully-Republican government:  "Sheldon Adelson’s Widow Is Ready To Purchase Congress" ('Hunter Wallace').  There will be a solid, non-addled, warmonger as President, somebody who can be trusted with running a war, and the Pentagon will lie and claim to be ahead of the Russians and Chinese in war tech, so WWIII, a War For The Adelson Family, can commence.

It is striking to watch the credentialed class, whose whole self-worth is embodied in its credentials, move so strongly against the credentialing system:  "California's Attempt To Hobble Gifted Students Over 'Racial Disparities' Starting To Backfire" (Durden).  It will take ten or twenty years for the effects of this to be seen, and then it will be described as a crisis.  Of course, WWIII will by then have made the collapse of American competitiveness moot.  The conspiracy theory is that the big brains intend the problem to lead to the elimination of all affirmative action.

It is not like they haven't told us that this is what they want and feel is necessary:  "Excess Deaths from the “Vaccine” Point to a Depopulation Agenda" (Roberts) and "Excess Deaths Point to Depopulation Agenda" (Whitney).  Actually, while vaxx deaths exist, it seems far more likely that the excess deaths are caused by lockdowns and other bad government choices, which lead to increased economic stresses, drug abuse, etc.

Hindsight is 20/20, as they say, but anybody with an IQ over 70 should have been able to come up with a plan that was better than what we got.  Old people, and the places they are warehoused, needed to be protected.  Hundreds of millions of dollars should have been poured into these places, to provide proper care and isolation.  Absolutely everything else should have remained the same.  No vaxx, no mandates, no lockdowns.  Proper time should have been given to honestly test the vaxx candidates.  The current poisons would clearly have been rejected as absurdly dangerous, not to mention the current main evolutionary driver of the virus mutations (had the virus been allowed to take its course amongst the younger population, as we commonly do with non-dangerous viruses, it would have already burned itself out).  The massive printing of money would not have been required, hence no new inflation, and the supply chains would not have been disrupted.  As I keep saying, all politicians and senior bureaucrats, and the billionaires they solely work for (if they work for anybody else, there is no evidence of it), should be arrested and punished, extremely severely (I would have no problem with retroactive laws passed for this once the current pols have been cleared out, but high treason/mass murder works also).  What they came up with only makes sense if the plan wasn't to control the pandemic, but to provide a lead-in to the totalitarian state which the billionaires are insisting on in their Great Reset.  The billionaires have made this an us-or-them proposition, so there is no doubt about what is going to have to happen if humanity is to survive.

"Killer Cure" (Dinh).

Trouble amongst Soros employees, who it seems would prefer not to be doxxed as such, a thread:

"Ecological Leninism:  Adam Tooze on Andreas Malm’s post-pandemic climate politics".  Direct action.  The problem is that direct action has been appropriated by billionaires like Soros, so the only weapon left is gone.  The traditional left had pretty good instincts in noticing existential crises, but a terrible track record in doing anything about them, and it is even worse when the 'left' is Rachel Maddow and Adam Schiff.

"Sandinistas Poised to Win Election in Nicaragua Despite U.S. Sabotage and Smears" (Lanuza).  People have developed an immunity to the Empire's tricks, including color revolutions.

An explanation for why everybody is suddenly interested in space:  "Helium-3: The secret ‘mining war’ in space" (Makichuk).

Expect to see a lot of this from Imperial scribblers:  "What if Xi Jinping just isn't that competent?" (Smith).  Surely bad reviews from a list of the most pathetic and craven lackey states of the Empire is proof of Xi's competence, not incompetence.  The Empire now has no answers for anything, so wishful thinking is all that is left.  It is also very typical of Late Empire to boil down a complicated governing system into one guy who can be made the villain.

"A Drone Tried to Disrupt the Power Grid. It Won't Be the Last" (Barrett).  Drones are such an obvious 'terrorist' weapon, with many possibilities for targets, that I can't see how private ownership of them can be allowed to continue.  Using laws against flying drones in certain areas to stop this is hilarious.  Note that the grid is so vulnerable, you don't even need a drone if you have enough insurgents with gun skills.

"New FBI report definitively proves ‘Russiagate,’ which dogged Trump's US presidency, was made up from the start" (Robinson).

"What are the Prospects for Peace?:  Interview with Dan Kovalik" (Rachel) (my Yinon emphasis in red):
"JR: Here’s a chicken-or-egg question: The U.S. accuses both Russia and China of rapidly expanding their military capabilities, claiming its own posturing and increase in weaponry is a response to its hostile adversaries, Russia and China. Both Russia and China claim they are merely responding to intimidation and military threats posed by the U.S. What’s your view? Do Russia and China have imperial ambitions or are they just trying to defend themselves against what they see as an increasingly aggressive U.S. military?

DK: It is undoubtedly true that Russia and China have their own ambitions for increasing power, prestige and influence in the world. However, Russia and China do so largely through means of offering development and infrastructure assistance and business relations to developing countries rather than by dropping bombs on other nations. The US takes the quite opposite tack, opting instead to wage war against other countries to obtain their ends.  Indeed, it is almost laughable that the US government and media panic over China’s “vaccine diplomacy” and Belt and Road Project – two examples of influence-building through constructive means – when the US is bombing other countries into oblivion. It is the US which is the threat to China and Russia, and not the other way around. It is the US which has troops up to the Russian frontier; Russia does not have analogous troops along the US frontier, for this would be unthinkable. It is the US which is provoking China through military manoeuvres in the South China Sea; China is not doing the same off the US coasts. As is its usual wont, the US is projecting its own sins upon others (in this case, China and Russia) so as to deflect blame and soul-searching for its own crimes."
"And of course, as the Democratic Party wisely stated in its party platform of 1900, “no nation can long endure half republic and half empire …”  By now, it is fair to say that the US is no longer a republic; that the Republic has indeed fallen to the Empire. We now have a country in which wars are waged without public consent, and many times without even public knowledge. The US government and compliant press actively collude to keep the American public in the dark about US military operations and motives. This was most recently revealed in the “Afghanistan Papers” which showed that, to a person, those leading the war in Afghanistan actively lied to the American people about the purposes of the war and the prospects for success. Trillions of dollars of US taxpayer dollars were, consequently, funnelled into the coffers of arms manufacturers and private military contractors on a war of twenty years which only the leaders knew was unwinnable because their was no real objective beyond enriching the private defence industry. That is, the war was not meant to be won, it was meant to be unending as George Orwell once pointed out. In this way, truth and democracy, and the well-being of the American people, were undermined. And Afghanistan is just one of many such wars built on lies and deception. We are left, as Jimmy Carter recently acknowledged, with no functioning democracy in our country. Instead, we have a military-industrial complex posing as a republic. 

JR: The highest ranking commanders of the U.S. military recently sounded the alarm. They have concluded that the U.S. — widely regarded as the most formidable military power in history — can’t defeat either Russia or China in a war. These military commanders are saying we need to dramatically increase our military capabilities. What do you make of this claim and the resulting demand for more DOD spending? 

DK: Such statements are simply madness, rivalling that of the crazy Generals in Dr. Strangelove. While it may be true that the US could not militarily defeat Russia and China, this begs the question of why the US would ever need to defeat them. In this new Cold War in which we are living, it is clear that it is the US which is the aggressor. Russia and China, both of which have known the devastation of war in ways which the US cannot even fathom, have no interest in starting a world conflagration. Indeed, as Jimmy Carter, speaking specifically of China to then President Trump, it is because China has waged no war since 1953 that it has been able to develop so quickly and to build the world’s greatest speed trains. Where are our speed trains, Carter then asked Trump. Of course, there are none because all of our resources are tied up in war. This illustrates the respective priorities of these countries – China (and Russia as well) spending much less on their militaries in order to use their resources to build their economies and infrastructure, and the US having the exact opposite priorities. All of this reveals that the US does not need to build its military to confront China and Russia unless it is the US which is planning to attack these countries. And if that is indeed the plan, we are all doomed.

JR: In 2009, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton announced a reset with Russia, heralding greater cooperation and understanding. By 2014, Obama had made a sharp reversal. A sweeping regime of sanctions has since been imposed on Russia to cripple its economy. Hillary Clinton and the Democrats now relentlessly demonize Russia and Putin, blaming them for every imaginable ill. Both in the media and from official pronouncements by government officials, Russia has become the favorite whipping boy for both the U.S. and its “special friend”, Great Britain.  Why?  What happened?

DK: This is a good question.I think that the break with Russia came when Russia would not go along with, and indeed actively opposed the US foray into Syria. Recall that Russia had assented to a limited intervention by the US/NATO in Libya in 2011 by abstaining on UN Security Council resolutions which, by their terms, allowed for NATO to set up a no-fly zone over Libya and to protect (all) Libyan civilians. This abstention, and China’s too, were conditioned upon NATO refraining from a grander regime-change operation in Libya.  Of course, as we all know, as soon as NATO started intervening in Libya in March of 2011, it made it clear that regime-change was the end game. And, true to this aim, NATO bombed Libya continuously from March to October of 2011 until Gaddafi was toppled and then murdered. Chaos, destruction and even human slavery followed this operation. Russia, and particularly Vladimir Putin, saw this as a huge betrayal. Apparently, Putin watched the video of the brutal sodomizing and killing of Gaddafi twice and with horror. He vowed he would never allow such a thing to happen again, and specifically, he vowed that he would not let the US get away with this in Syria as it was then beginning to do. Putin’s military intervention to counter the US/Israel/Gulf States intervention in Syria is what led to Obama and Clinton to take an adversarial role towards Russia and Putin. Their regime-change plans for Syria were foiled by Russia, and they would never forgive Russia and Putin for this.

JR: The number of spy missions, nuclear-armed bomber flights, and war games near Russia’s borders have vastly increased over the past year. Same with China. Is all of this just business-as-usual geopolitical posturing? Or does it represent a dangerous escalation and a new ominous direction in U.S. strategic positioning? What is the justification for what Russia and China see as provocations and aggressiveness, if not actual preparation for a war?

DK: It is very clear that the US is preparing for war with Russia and/or China, and US leaders are not shy in saying so. Thus, in 2018, Defense News ran a story openly stating that Pentagon was redesigning its forces specifically to plan for war with Russia and China. Many have opined, and I agree, that Trump’s attempt to withdraw from Afghanistan, and Biden’s carrying out this withdrawal, are part of this re-focus on Russia and China; that the US is planning to withdraw forces from the Middle East so it can focus on these two greater adversaries. The next war, if we cannot mobilize to prevent it, will be a world war between the US and one or maybe both of these countries. The powers-that-be in the US know now that the US cannot compete with China, and to a lesser extent Russia. China is now the dominant economic power in the world, and has increasingly greater diplomatic prestige than the US. The only way the US can change this, our leaders believe, is by brute force. Of course, this could lead to nuclear conflagration and the end of the world, and thus must be opposed with every fiber of our being."
blog comments powered by Disqus