Tag: neoclowns

Neocons are Evil Hypocrites

There is simply no other way to interpret their incessant Israel First blathering. I have no problem with Israel, or any other nation, defending its borders. But the idea that the USA has no right to defend their borders against “refugees” with deadly force is pharasaical inversion and straight-up anti-American evil.

As Jesus Christ himself said: “Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.“

That being said, at this point, the die is cast. America has been invaded, conquered, and occupied. My estimate is that after the disintegration wars wind down, about one-third to one-half of current US territory will ultimately be controlled by people who can be more or less be reasonably described as Americans, while the rest will be divided into various forms of states ruled by diversity of one kind or another.

But this will be after a movement of peoples that rivals the post-imperial Partition of India.

DISCUSS ON SG

It’s Not About the Economics

In which we see, once more, that those who believe material elements, such as greed or individual ambition, are the primary driver of all human action, have no capacity for understanding or anticipating future events.

Economic logic provides that the U.S. (and European) economy would be better off by avoiding a conflict with Russia and China. But, as Micheal Hudson explains, this now gets overwritten by national security preferences which have remarkable conseqences:

Instead of isolating Russia and China and making them dependent on U.S. economic control, U.S. unipolar diplomacy has isolated itself and its NATO satellites from the rest of the world – the Global Majority that is growing while NATO economies are rushing ahead along their Road to Deindustrialization. The remarkable thing is that while NATO warns of the “risk” of trade with Russia and China, it does not see its loss of industrial viability and economic sovereignty to the United States as a risk.

This is not what the “economic interpretation of history” would have forecast. Governments are expected to support their economy’s leading business interests. So we are brought back to the question of whether economic factors will determine the shape of world trade, investment and diplomacy. Is it really possible to create a set of post-economic NATO economies whose members will come to look much like the rapidly depopulating and de-industrializing Baltic states and post-Soviet Ukraine?

This would be a strange kind of “national security” indeed. In economic terms it seems that the U.S. and European strategy of self-isolation from the rest of the world is so massive and far-reaching an error that its effects are the equivalent of a world war.

The question is really why the U.S. is doing this harm to itself instead of following Brzezinski’s and Kissinger’s advice. As Yves Smith says in her preface to Hudson’s piece, it is a quite bizarre spectacle:

One of the subthemes of the latest offering from Michael Hudson on the bizarre spectacle of the US escalating against China is puzzlement that the West is not operating in its best interest. Lambert has been chewing over this conundrum too. Perhaps it’s that they really do believe their propaganda, and still don’t recognize that the military and economic clout of the US/EU bloc on a relative basis isn’t anywhere near substantial enough for them to push the rest of the world around. But you think their self-delusion would have started to crack with the failure in their efforts to pressure many countries, such as India and South Africa, to side with the US and condemn Russia’s actions in Ukraine, and now with the supposedly superior US/NATO war machine not performing too well.

Another possibility is the so-called Iron Law of Institutions, that individuals and interests are operating to maximize their own position, with little/no concern to the impact on the system.

I have come to the conclusion that the main actors in this game, the Bindens, Blinkens, Sullivans and their bipartisan supporters, are driven by a blind ideology that has dismissed or replaced global realities with wishful thinking.

The failure of their sanctions against Russia should have demonstrated to them that the real word is by far not the one in which they believe to be living. They however are now repeating their errors by waging a similar war against China.

The U.S. Wars Against Russia And China Have No Economic Logic Attached To Them, 22 July 2023

It’s fascinating how the material mind reaches out in every direction but the correct one. But Sherlock Holmes had it backwards. Once you have eliminated all of the probabilities, the appropriate action is to conclude that what you hitherto believed to be impossible may be the truth.

DISCUSS ON SG

Of Course They Knew

The US government knew about the Wagner “rebellion” days in advance because the whole thing was most likely orchestrated by the color revolutionaries.

US intelligence officials knew well in advance that Wagner head Yevgeny Prigozhin was planning to mount an armed rebellion against the Russian military’s top commanders. Congressional leaders were even briefed days prior to Saturday’s events, after US intelligence reportedly observed the mercenary firm mustering forces and amassing weapons in preparation for possibly making a move against the defense ministry.

Any time there is a coup or revolution or color revolution, it’s a certain sign that the neoclowns are waging war by bank transfer again.

DISCUSS ON SG

Waving the White Flag

The neoclowns are starting to push for diplomacy and a negotiated armistice in Ukraine in a new piece in Foreign Affairs entitled “An Unwinnable War”:

An entire new U.S. military command element, the Security Assistance Group–Ukraine, has been devoted to the aid and training mission, which is led by a three-star general with a staff of 300. Yet there is not a single official in the U.S. government whose full-time job is conflict diplomacy. Biden should appoint one, perhaps a special presidential envoy who can engage beyond ministries of foreign affairs, which have been sidelined in this crisis in nearly all relevant capitals. Next, the United States should begin informal discussions with Ukraine and among allies in the G-7 and NATO about the endgame.

In parallel, the United States should consider establishing a regular channel of communication regarding the war that includes Ukraine, U.S. allies, and Russia. This channel would not initially be aimed at achieving a cease-fire. Instead, it would allow participants to interact continually, instead of in one-off encounters, akin to the contact group model used during the Balkan wars, when an informal grouping of representatives from key states and international institutions met regularly. Such discussions should begin out of the public eye, as did initial U.S. contacts with Iran on the nuclear deal, signed in 2015.

These efforts might well fail to lead to an agreement. The odds of success are slim—and even if negotiations did produce a deal, no one would leave fully satisfied. The Korean armistice was certainly not seen as a triumph of U.S. foreign policy at the time it was signed: after all, the American public had grown accustomed to absolute victories, not bloody wars without clear resolution. But in the nearly 70 years since, there has not been another outbreak of war on the peninsula. Meanwhile, South Korea emerged from the devastation of the 1950s to become an economic powerhouse and eventually a thriving democracy. A postwar Ukraine that is similarly prosperous and democratic with a strong Western commitment to its security would represent a genuine strategic victory.

An endgame premised on an armistice would leave Ukraine—at least temporarily—without all its territory. But the country would have the opportunity to recover economically, and the death and destruction would end. It would remain locked in a conflict with Russia over the areas occupied by Moscow, but that conflict would play out in the political, cultural, and economic domains, where, with Western support, Ukraine would have advantages. The successful reunification of Germany, in 1990, another country divided by terms of peace, demonstrates that focusing on nonmilitary elements of the contestation can produce results. Meanwhile, a Russian-Ukrainian armistice would also not end the West’s confrontation with Russia, but the risks of a direct military clash would decrease dramatically, and the global consequences of the war would be mitigated.

Many commentators will continue to insist that this war must be decided only on the battlefield. But that view discounts how the war’s structural realities are unlikely to change even if the frontline shifts, an outcome that itself is far from guaranteed. The United States and its allies should be capable of helping Ukraine simultaneously on the battlefield and at the negotiating table. Now is the time to start.

There are a few problems here. First, the Egypt-Israel model cannot apply, because unlike in the Middle East, the US and its allies are co-belligerents in Ukraine. Therefore, they cannot expect Russia to accept them as anything but adversaries; the situation on the Korean Peninsula is a more relevant analogy. Second, the US and its allies not only permitted, but actively conspired with Ukraine in undermining the previous diplomatic efforts that resulted in the Minsk Accords.

Third, this analysis presumes material military weakness and lack of morale on the part of Russia that does not appear to be in evidence. While the inabilities of the Armed Forces of Ukraine are now being recognized, the narrative of Russian military incapacity remains largely unchanged despite having been proven to be reliably wrong for the last eighteen months. While the writer recognizes that Ukraine is incapable of winning, he still doesn’t realize that the same is not true of Russia.

Fourth, there are zero indications that Russia has any interest in a diplomatic solution and a plethora of signs that Russia has absolutely no intention of letting Clown World off the hook in Ukraine or anywhere else in the world. If WWIII has, as I believe, already begun, it is not going to be averted by a belated interest in diplomacy on the part of the neoclowns.

But the article is certainly worth noting due to the way it informs us that the formerly triumphalist clowns now recognize that what they previously believed to be their inevitable victory is, at the very least, no longer imminent, and may not even be possible anymore.

DISCUSS ON SG

The Real War Starts in Summer

Noted military strategist and accomplished color revolutionary Victoria Nuland openly admitted that the neoclowns are responsible for the Ukrainian strategery that has thus far proven to be considerably less competent than that of the Arabs who lost all of the Arab-Israeli wars.

US Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland told an audience in Kiev on Thursday that Washington has been helping plan the Ukrainian ‘counteroffensive’ against Russia for almost half a year.

“Even as you plan for the counteroffensive, which we have been working on with you for some 4-5 months, we are already beginning our discussions with [the] Ukrainian government and with friends in Kiev – both on the civilian side and on the military side – about Ukraine’s long-term future,” Nuland told the Kiev Security Forum via video-link from the State Department.

She added that the attack will be “likely starting and moving concurrently” with events such as the NATO summit in Lithuania, scheduled for July 11.

Now that it’s impossible to move large quantities of men and machines undetected, military offensives customarily begin under the cover of exercises. And it’s very, very unlikely that the biggest NATO air exercise in history just happens to be scheduled on month before the date that Victoria Nuland mentioned.

The largest NATO air exercise since the alliance’s founding in 1949 will be taking place this summer, and the U.S. Air National Guard (ANG) will be providing nearly half of the airpower slated to participate. As for how that show of force may be perceived by global threats like Russia as war rages on in Ukraine, senior ANG officials have said they can “take away whatever message they want.”

The expansive exercise has been dubbed Air Defender 2023 (AD23), and it’s scheduled to occur later this year between June 12-23. AD23, which has been brewing since 2018, will be led by Germany and take place primarily in that country but with additional forward operating locations in the Czech Republic, Estonia, and Latvia, according to the ANG.

Among the 10,000 personnel slated to attend and the 220 aircraft that will be employed throughout AD23, the ANG alone will be providing roughly 100 aircraft contributed by 46 wings from 35 states. At another press event held recently at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, Loh highlighted that AD23 will mark the ANG’s largest deployment across the Atlantic since the Gulf War.

Specific assets that will participate in AD23 are said to include a wide range of U.S. types, including the F-35A, F-15C, and F-16; the A-10C; the KC-135 and KC-46A tankers for refueling operations; and the C-17A and C-130J aircraft as the ANG’s primary modes of transportation. An MQ-9 Reaper drone from the Texas Air Guard’s 147th Attack Wing will be employed, as well, and Defense News noted that U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighters, NATO E-3 airborne early warning and control jets, and German A400 tankers will also be present among many other types.

I suspect the very sophisticated strategy on the part of Nuland and the neoclowns goes something like this: If the Russians are expecting a NATO air attack in July, but it actually begins in June, this will take them completely by surprise. And since, as we all know, the art of war is entirely dependent upon taking the enemy by surprise, this means we will win. Checkmate, Putin!

Anyhow, as I’ve been saying literally from the start, Ukraine is only the battleground. Sooner or later, NATO has to either surrender or engage the Russians directly, devoid of any excuses, puppets, or proxies. And that is when we will see the true strength of Clown World revealed, or as I suspect is much more likely the case, exposed.

DISCUSS ON SG

Zelensky Avoids Ukraine

Given the fact that the Kiev regime’s resident comedian has travelled around the world while assiduously avoiding any return to Ukraine, it appears that regime change in Ukraine may be nigh.

Weeks ago I learned that the American intelligence community was aware that some officials in Western Europe and the Baltic states want the war between Ukraine and Russia to end. These officials have concluded that it is time for Zelensky to “come around” and seek a settlement. A knowledgeable American official told me that some in the leadership in Hungary and Poland were among those working together to get Ukraine involved in serious talks with Moscow. “Hungary is a big player in this and so are Poland and Germany, and they are working to get Zelensky to come around,” the American official said. The European leaders have made it clear that “Zelensky can keep what he’s got”—a villa in Italy and interests in offshore bank accounts—“if he works up a peace deal even if he’s got to be paid off, if it’s the only way to get a deal.”

So far, the official said, Zelensky has rejected such advice and ignored offers of large sums of money to ease his retreat to an estate he owns in Italy. There is no support in the Biden Administration for any settlement that involves Zelensky’s departure, and the leadership in France and England “are too beholden” to Biden to contemplate such a scenario. There is a reality that some elements in the American intelligence community can’t ignore, the official said, even if the White House is ignoring it: “Ukraine is running out of money and it is known that the next four or months are critical. And Eastern Europeans are talking about a deal.” The issue for them, the official told me, “is how to get the United States to stop supporting Zelensky,” The White House support goes beyond the needs of the war: “We are paying all of the retirement funds—the 401k’s—for Ukraine.”

And Zelensky wants more, the official said. “Zelensky is telling us that if you want to win the war you’ve got to give me more money and more stuff. He tells us, ‘I’ve got to pay off the generals.’ He’s telling us”—if he is forced out of office—“he’s going to the highest bidder. He’d rather go to Italy than stay and possibly get killed by his own people.”

It will be interesting to see how long Zelensky lasts once he returns to Ukraine – if he returns to Ukraine.

DISCUSS ON SG

The History of the US Color Revolution

Ron Unz writes a brief, but comprehensive history of the rise of the neocons from a minor anti-Soviet faction of the Democratic Party to the foreign policy establishment. And in doing so, he implicitly explains why 9/11 happened and who was responsible for it.

The complete ideological triumph of the Neocons after the 9/11 attacks was all the more shocking given the crushing recent political defeat they had suffered. During the 2000 presidential campaign, nearly all of the Neocons had aligned themselves with Sen. John McCain, whose battle with Bush for the Republican nomination had eventually turned quite bitter, and as a consequence, they had been almost entirely frozen out of any high-level appointments. Both Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld were then widely regarded as Bush Republicans, lacking any significant Neocon ties, and the same was true for all the other top administration figures such as Colin Powell, Condeleeza Rice, and Paul O’Neil. Indeed, the only Neoconservative offered a Cabinet spot was Linda Chavez, and not only was the Labor Department always regarded as something of a boobie prize in a GOP Administration, but she was ultimately forced to withdraw her nomination due to her “nanny problems.” The highest-ranking Neocon serving under Bush was Rumsfeld Deputy Paul Wolfowitz, whose seemingly inconsequential appointment had passed without any notice.

Most of the Neocons themselves certainly seemed to recognize the catastrophic loss they had suffered in the 2000 election. Back in those days, I was on very friendly terms with Bill Kristol, and when I stopped by his office at the Weekly Standard for a chat in the spring of 2001, he seemed in a remarkably depressed state of mind. I remember that at one point, he took his head in his hands and wondered aloud whether it was time for him to just abandon the political battle, resigning his editorship and taking up a quiet post at a DC thinktank. Yet just eight or ten months later, he and his close allies were on their way to gaining overwhelming influence in our government. In an eerie parallel to the story told in Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Lenin in Zurich, the totally fortuitous 9/11 attacks and the outbreak of war had suddenly allowed a small but determined ideological faction to seize control of a gigantic country.

In the aftermath of the 9/11 Attacks, the Neocons had solidified their control of nearly all existing conservative media outlets, prompting Pat Buchanan and a couple of partners to found The American Conservative in 2002. The following year, he used that platform for a blistering attack on Bush’s Iraq War foreign policy, which he denounced as a Neocon project. David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter and one of his targets, launched a near-simultaneous broadside in National Review against Buchanan and other critics, whom he condemned as “unpatriotic conservatives.” Taken together, the two lengthy pieces provide a good overview of the key figures on both sides of that bitter ideological battle.

Many moderates and liberals were equally appalled by the Iraq War as it unfolded, but unlike Buchanan they were often quite gun-shy in highlighting the obvious pro-Israel roots and motives of the leading Neocon backers…

Despite the unprecedented strategic disaster of the Iraq War, the Neocons fully retained their hold on the Republican Party’s foreign policy, while their Democratic counterparts achieved the same success across the political aisle. Thus, when the manifest failures of the Bush Administration led to the overwhelming victory of Barack Obama in 2008, Bush Neocons were merely replaced by Obama Neocons. Donald Trump’s unexpected triumph in 2016 brought to power the Trump Neocons such as Mike Pompeo and John Bolton, who were then succeeded in 2020 by Biden Neocons Antony Blinken and Victoria Nuland.

As I recently explained:

One difficulty is that the very term “Neocon” used here has actually become much less meaningful than it once was. After having controlled American foreign policy for more than three decades, promoting their allies and protégés and purging their opponents, the adherents of that world view now constitute nearly the entire political establishment, including control of the leading thinktanks and publications. By now, I doubt there are many prominent figures in either party who follow a sharply different line. Furthermore, over the last two decades, the national security-focused Neocons have largely merged with the economically-focused neoliberals, forming a unified ideological block that represents the political worldview of the elites running both American parties.

Our nation’s two most recent Secretaries of State have been Mike Pompeo and Antony Blinken, and I’m not whether either of them even considers himself a Neocon, given that their foreign policy views are almost universal within their political circle. Do fish think that water is wet?

But consider the reality of today’s American foreign policy. In 1992 Neocon Paul Wolfowitz had drafted a Defense document advocating measures to ensure our permanent global military dominance but when it leaked the proposal was immediately repudiated by our Republican President and top military leaders, let alone the Democrats; however a decade later this “Wolfowitz Doctrine” had became our policy under Bush and today it enjoys complete bipartisan support.

Or consider the 28 standing ovations received by the Israeli prime minister when he spoke before a joint session of Congress in 2015, including the Stalinesque touch that some of our elected officials were denounced for applauding with insufficient enthusiasm. Given such a political environment, the strong pressure once exerted upon the Jewish State by such varied American Presidents as Carter, Reagan, Bush, and Clinton would be unthinkable today.

From the moment the Ukraine war began, our entire media and political establishments have been in absolute lock-step, with scarcely a trace of doubt or dissent. There has been no willingness to recognize the role of NATO expansion in provoking the conflict nor to ask questions about a possible American role in the explosions that destroyed Europe’s Nord Stream energy pipelines.

The Neocons and Their Rise to Power, Ron Unz, 1 May 2023

Totally fortuitous indeed. There are a lot of “fortuitous” things that seem to happen around the world whenever the neoclowns are involved in some way, shape, or form. But as Robert Kagan’s last three books have chronicled, events are no longer trending in their favor because their fundamental axioms are false, thereby ensuring their ultimate failure even in areas – especially in areas – where they have been successful in the past.

It’s an excellent primer on neoconnery, although I reject the claim that the neoclowns are not Trotskyite world revolutionaries, which should be painfully obvious given the number of color revolutions they have attempted to launch around the world since the turn of the century. I highly recommend reading the whole thing because one cannot even begin to understand Clown World without knowing who the neoclowns are, from whence they came, and what their global imperialist objectives are.

DISCUSS ON SG

Neoclowns in Retreat

The Ukraine War hasn’t even been officially lost yet and the neoclowns responsible for it are already in retreat again from their own imperialist ideology.

Shortly after September 11, 2001, I became known as a “neoconservative.” The term was a bit puzzling, because I wasn’t new to conservatism; I had been on the right ever since I could remember. But the “neocon” label came to be used after 9/11 to denote a particular strain of conservatism that placed human rights and democracy promotion at the forefront of U.S. foreign policy. This was a very different mindset from the realpolitik approach of such Republicans as President Dwight Eisenhower, President Richard Nixon, and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, and it had a natural appeal to someone like me whose family had come to the United States in search of freedom. (We arrived from the Soviet Union in 1976, when I was six years old.) Having lived in a communist dictatorship, I supported the United States spreading freedom abroad. That, in turn, led me to become a strong supporter of military action in Afghanistan and Iraq.

So, Paper American thinks he should be setting US foreign policy because he lived in an imperialist dictatorship created by his own people for five years. Strangely enough, he supports the same imperialist foreign policy of the place from which he came.

Although I remain a supporter of democracy and human rights, after seeing how democracy promotion has worked out in practice, I no longer believe it belongs at the center of U.S. foreign policy. In retrospect, I was wildly overoptimistic about the prospects of exporting democracy by force, underestimating both the difficulties and the costs of such a massive undertaking. I am a neocon no more, at least as that term has been understood since 9/11.

So we’ve seen the neoclowns retreat from the inevitable “End of History” to the need to “Garden the Jungle”, and now we’re seeing them retreat again to “Garden the Garden”.

I still favor U.S. international leadership and support of allies, including a strong U.S. military presence in the three centers of global power—Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia—where their deployment is essential to maintain order and deter aggression.

But you know what? The Garden is going to fail too. The neoclowns are going to lose control because they are not only at war with reality, but with God, history, and human nature. And they know it, which is why they are rapidly attempting to change their tune in order to try to escape being held accountable for their monstrous failures for which so many lives, including Americans, were sacrificed.

DISCUSS ON SG

With Tongues of Neoclowns

European puppets are speaking words that are literally put into their mouths. Notice the particular choice of language utilized by the EU commissioner that is being specifically criticized by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov:

In a desperate attempt to assert its dominance by punishing the disobedient, the United States has moved to destroy globalization, which for many years it extolled as the greatest good of all mankind.

Now the United States and its allies blacklist anyone who dissents from their “golden billion” and tell the rest of the world, “those who are not with us are against us”.

Yet the “Western minority” has no right to speak for the entire world.

Its “rules-based order” amounts to rejection of sovereign equality, the key principle of the United Nations Charter, as evidenced by European Union commissioner Josep Borrell’s infamous statement about the European “garden” and the “jungle” outside it.

In addition to the string of United States military “adventures” from Yugoslavia and Iraq to Libya, the worst violation of the United Nations Charter was its meddling in the affairs of post-Soviet states,

As examples are the “color revolutions” in Georgia and Kyrgyzstan and the 2014 coup in Kiev.

The garden and the jungle is a geopolitical metaphor popularized by Robert Kagan, the neoclown intellectual who writes deceptive little instructional pamphlets that inform Clown World leaders what rhetoric they should be utilizing and also happens to be married to the notorious neoclown color revolutionary, Victoria Nuland.

While “the rule of the jungle” first appeared in George Bush’s “New World Order” speech in 1991, there is not a single reference to the jungle/garden metaphor in either Present Dangers (2000) or The Return of History and the End of Dreams (2009). But the metaphor is the framework for The Jungle Grows Back (2018), which concludes thusly:

The liberal order is as precarious as it is precious. It is a garden that needs constant tending lest the jungle grow back and engulf us all.

Based on Lavrov’s criticism, the Russians are clearly aware of the servile nature of those who speak with the tongues of neoclowns. And they’re clearly not inclined to accept the imposition of the new narrative upon “the jungle” either.

Moscow will not abide by the “so-called rules” invented and imposed by “certain countries,” Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday, as he delivered a speech at a meeting of Russia’s Council of Legislators in St. Petersburg.

DISCUSS ON SG

Color Revolution in Sudan

AUG 24, 2022 – US Ambassador appointed to Sudan following a 25 year absence.

SEPT 28, 2022 – US Ambassador warns Sudan against finalizing Russian naval base deal

NOV 11, 2022 – Blinken urges Sudan to consider “US support for the rapid formation of a civilian-led transitional governnent”.

DEC 5, 2022 – UN brokers Framework Agreement between Sudan’s military leaders and leading pro-democracy parties

DEC 7, 2022 – Blinken threatens travel ban for Sudanese who endanger Framework Agreement deal

FEB 12, 2023 – Sudan confirms deal for Russian naval base, key players Lavrov and General Burhan.

FEB 16, 2023 – CIA payout cash sent. Biden administration sends $218 million in humanitarian aid to Sudan.

MAR 9, 2023 – Coup plans finalized, orders given as Victoria Nuland visits Sudan to “discuss democracy”

APR 8, 2023 – Conflict escalates between Sudanese Armed Forces (under General Burhan) and paramilitary group RSF (under Dagalo)

APR 22, 2023 – US diplomats evacuate Sudan

APR 24, 2023 – Biden submits a War Powers Resolution to Congress regarding the Deployment of U.S. Military Forces to Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Sudan.

APR 25, 2023 – U.S. moves intelligence assets, troops into Africa.

This is precisely the process that what Victoria Nuland’s husband, Robert Kagan, describes as “tending the jungle on behalf of the garden of democracy” in his 2019 book The Jungle Grows Back.

DISCUSS ON SG