Friday, November 30, 2018

Nothing In Any Conspiracy Theory Is As Bad As What’s Being Done Out In The Open by Caitlin Johnstone


Nothing In Any Conspiracy Theory Is As Bad As What’s Being Done Out In The Open

Nothing In Any Conspiracy Theory Is As Bad As What’s Being Done Out In The Open
by Caitlin Johnstone
Yesterday President Trump posted a statement on the White House website saying his administration will be standing with the House of Saud despite the CIA’s assertion that Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman personally ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a Saudi journalist who was living and working in the United States.
The statement reads like a long form version of one of Trump’s tweets, replete with gratuitous exclamation points and slogans like “America First!” and the lie that Iran is “the world’s leading sponsor of terror”, which will never be true no matter how many times this administration deliberately repeats it. The world’s leading sponsor of terrorism is of course Saudi Arabia, along with Israel and the United States.

Trump’s alleged opposition has responded with melodramatic outrage, as though a US president continuing to stand by Saudi Arabia in the face of horrific acts of violence is somehow new and unprecedented and not standard operating procedure for decades. Dismembering a journalist while he’s still alive would be a fairly typical Tuesday afternoon for the Saudi government and would not rank anywhere near the top ten most evil things this government has done, but because it involves America and a conspiracy it’s a sexy story that everyone laps up. Add in the fact that Trump is more blunt and forthcoming about American depravity and you’ve got yourself a yarn.
Dear @realDonaldTrump: You are the President of the United States of America. You should not grovel to Saudi Arabia.
Your statement is weak despite the random exclamation points. A strong @POTUS would not excuse the Saudis for murdering a journalist & cutting him up into pieces https://t.co/MDbRFtmXRO
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) November 21, 2018

Julian Assange’s Attorney Explains That The Indictment Is Illegal And Without Basis In Law


Julian Assange’s Attorney Explains That The Indictment Is Illegal And Without Basis In Law

Julian Assange’s Attorney Explains That The Indictment Is Illegal And Without Basis In Law
More from Guest Contributions

A MUST READ -- Revenge Is Mine Saith Washington Paul Craig Roberts


Revenge Is Mine Saith Washington

Revenge Is Mine Saith Washington
Paul Craig Roberts
Justice has disappeared in the West. In Justice’s place stands Revenge. This fact is conclusively illustrated by Julian Assange’s ongoing eight year ordeal.
For eight years Julian Assange’s life has been lived in a Kafka Police State. He has been incarcerated first under British house arrest and then in the Ecuadoran Embassy in London, despite the absence of any charges filed against him.
Meanwhile, the entirety of the Western world, with the exception of former Educadoran President Rafael Correa and a UN agency that examined the case and ruled Assange was being illegally detained by the UK government’s refusal to honor his grant of political asylum, has turned its back to the injustice.
Assange is locked away in the Ecuadoran Embassy, because to protect him from false arrest, former Ecuadoran President Correa gave him political asylum. However, the corrupt and servile UK government that serves Washington, and not justice or law, refused to honor Assange’s asylum. The US vassal known as the UK stands ready to arrest Assange on Washington’s orders if he steps outside the embassy and to hand him over to Washington, where a large number of both Democrats and Republicans in Congress have said he should be executed. The Trump regime, carrying on the illegal practices of its forebears, has a secret indictment waiting to be revealed once they have their hands on Assange.
The current president of Ecuador a servant of Washington, Lenin Moreno—a person so lacking in character that his name is an insult to Lenin— is working a deal with Washington to rescind Assange’s grant of asylum so that the Ecuadoran Embassy in London has to expel Assange into the hands of Washington.

PCR Interviewed by KVMR radio, California, on the lies within which we live


PCR Interviewed by KVMR radio, California, on the lies within which we live


PCR Interviewed by KVMR radio, California, on the lies within which we live

More from Interviews

Identity Politics Lawyer Trying to Destroy Tucker Carlson Arrested on Domestic Violence Charges


Identity Politics Lawyer Trying to Destroy Tucker Carlson Arrested on Domestic Violence Charges


Identity Politics Lawyer Trying to Destroy Tucker Carlson Arrested on Domestic Violence Charges
The porn lawyer Michael Avenatti has been arrested for beating his wife. His charge is “felony domestic violence.” https://sputniknews.com/viral/201811151069815820-Porn-Lawyer-Arrested-Domestic-Violence/
Now he has the legal problems that he has inflicted on others.
Avenatti is the lawyer who apparently sent the “gay latino activist” into the Farmington Country Club in Virginia to verbally abuse Tucker Carlson’s daughter as her father’s whore. When Carlson and country club officials instructed the homosexual immigrant to leave, Avenatti filed a lawsuit against Carlson.
In other words, Avenatti had set up an “incident” that would bring him more name recognition, more cases against “white society,” and greater ability to use up important people’s time in lawsuits, thus maximizing his pay-offs for going away.

Chomsky Warns of the Rise of ‘Judeo-Nazi Tendencies’ in Israel


Only Jews Can Tell The Truth About Israel
Only Jews Can Tell The Truth About Israel
Imagine what would happen to Chomsky if he were a white gentile

Chomsky Warns of the Rise of ‘Judeo-Nazi Tendencies’ in Israel
November 12, 2018 “Information Clearing House” –   Prominent Jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky has raised concerns over what he believes is the rise of “Judeo-Nazi tendencies” in Israel. Speaking to i24NEWS last week, the renowned political dissident, linguist and scholar repeated warnings given by Yeshayahu Leibowitz, an Israeli public intellectual, biochemist and polymath, concerning the dehumanising effect of Israel’s brutal occupation of Palestine on the victims and the oppressors.
Chomsky commented on remarks by Leibowitz who was nominated for the Israel Prize saying that “Leibowitz warned that if the occupation continues, Israeli Jews are going to turn into what he called, Judeo-Nazis”. Chomsky recognised the description was a “strong term” and that most people wouldn’t be able to get away with describing Israel in this manner but explained that Leibowitz’s status meant that he was able to speak about Israel without incurring fury.

A “Civil War” Lesson for the Uneducated Paul Craig Roberts


A “Civil War” Lesson for the Uneducated
A “Civil War” Lesson for the Uneducated
Paul Craig Roberts
In response to my short essay on November 9 ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/11/09/the-prevalence-of-myth-over-history/ ), a reader sent me a link to secession documents that implicated slavery, not the tariff, as the reason for Southern secession. It is typical for the uneducated to come across a document of which they have no understanding and to send it off with a rude “got you” note to one who does understand the document.
I have explained the Southern states secession from the union in long essays. See:


Once again:
When the Southern states seceded, they were concerned to do so legally or constitutionally under the Constitution so that the North could not legally claim that it was an act of rebellion and invade the Southern states. To make this case, the South needed to make a case that the North had broken the Consltitutional contract and that the South was seceding because the North had not kept to the Constitution.
This presented a legal challenge for the South, because the reason for which the Southern states were seceding was the tariff, but the Constitution gave the federal government the right to levy a tariff. Therefore, the Southern states could not cite the tariff as a breach of the Constitutional fabric.
Slavery was the only issue that the South could use to make a legal case that it was not in rebellion. Article 4 of the US Constitution reads: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.” In defiance of Article 4, some Northern states had passed laws that nullified the Fugitive Slave Act and other laws that upheld this article of the Constitution. The South used these nullification laws to make its case that Northern states had broken the Constitutional contract, thus justifying the Southern states secession.
Lincoln understood that he had no authority under the Constitution to abolish slavery. In his inaugural address he said: “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.” The North had no intention of going to war over slavery. The same day that the Republican Congress passed the tariff, Congress passed the Corwin Amendment that added more constitutional protection to slavery.
Lincoln said that the South could have all the slavery that it wanted as long as the Southern states paid the tariff. The North would not go to war over slavery, but it would to collect the tariff. Lincoln said that “there needs to be no bloodshed or violence” over collecting the tariff, but that he will use the government’s power “to collect the duties and imposts.” The tariff was important to the North, because it financed Northern industrialization at the economic expense of the South.
During the decades prior to Southern Secession, the conflict between North and South was over the tariff, not over slavery. Slavery played a role only in the South’s effort to keep a balance in the voting power of “free states” and “slave states” in the attempt to prevent the passage of a tariff.
The South’s effort to exit the union legally and constitutionally was to no avail. Secession was declared a rebellion, and the South was invaded.
The misportrayal of the War of Northern Aggression as Lincoln’s war to free slaves is also impossible to reconcile with Lincoln’s view of blacks. Here is “the Great Emancipator” in his own words:
“I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation [of the white and black races] . . . Such separation . . . must be affected by colonization” [sending blacks to Liberia or Central America]. (Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln vol. II, p. 409).
“Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, and . . . favorable to . . . our interest, to transfer the African to his native clime.” (Collected Works, vol. II, p. 409). 
“I am not nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people” (Collected Works, vol. III, pp. 145-146). 
How was Lincoln turned into “the Great Emancipator”?
Just as Civil War history is mistaught in order to support the Identity Politics agenda of fomenting hatred of whites, the histories of the two world wars were fabricated in order to blame Germany, more about which later.
Note: On the question of rebellion: When the state of Virginia ratified the US Constitution, the state reserved the right to exit the union should the situation become oppressive:https://www.usconstitution.net/rat_va.html
A reader sent these sections of Article 1 of the Texas state constitution:
ARTICLE 1. BILL OF RIGHTS
That the general, great and essential principles of liberty and free government may be recognized and established, we declare:
Sec. 1. FREEDOM AND SOVEREIGNTY OF STATE. Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution of the United States, and the maintenance of our free institutions and the perpetuity of the Union depend upon the preservation of the right of local self-government, unimpaired to all the States.
Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient.
Sec. 29. BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT AND INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this “Bill of Rights” is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void.


Why White Gentiles Can’t Get Admission to Ivy League Universities


Why White Gentiles Can’t Get Admission to Ivy League Universities


Why White Gentiles Can’t Get Admission to Ivy League Universities
Paul Craig Roberts
If you are a top ability student, but white, especially white male, you have scant chance of being admitted to Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Columbia, Dartmouth, Cornell, Brown, Penn, Stanford, MIT, CalTech, Berkeley, or UCLA.
The reason whites cannot gain admission is that in the entirety of the Ivy league, Jews are over-represented, relative to the pool of high ability students, by 381%. High ability Asians are under-represented at 62%, and non-Jewish whites are most under-represented of all with a presence in the Ivy League of only 35% of their presence in the pool of high ability students. The Asians are suing Harvard for discrimination, but any such action by whites would be dismissed as an act of “white supremacy.”
At MIT and Stanford, Jews are also over-represented. At CalTech it is Asians, and at Berkeley and UCLA it is a combination of Jews and Asians. The over-representation is with reference to the pool of high ability students. Equally or better qualified whites are passed over in favor of admission of others.

The Prevalence of Myth over History Paul Craig Roberts


The Prevalence of Myth over History


The Prevalence of Myth over History
Paul Craig Roberts
Today (Nov. 9) I heard a black historian on NPR say that the “civil war” was fought in order to establish a framework for human rights.
He also said that black civil rights achieved by the war were overturned by the rollback of Reconstruction, put back in place by the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and was now being overturned again by Trump’s response to the caravan from Honduras.
As best as I could tell, this was an Identity Politics explanation of history with all of its contradictions and factual errors.

US NATO War Agenda: Confirmation of our version of the incident at Kertch

Confirmation of our version of the incident at Kertch

  
Russia has made public three interrogations of Ukrainian marines taken prisoner during the Kertch incident on 25 November 2018 and a document (photo) seized on board one of the ships.
According to this document and these videos, the incident had been planned by Ukraine collaborating with foreign powers. Two officers from Ukraine’s military intelligence service were on board the ships to coordinate operations. They were the ones that forbade the marines from responding to messages from the Russians when the war ships entered Russian territorial waters, waters that Ukraine was claiming to belong to it.
Our collaborator Valentin Vasilescu thinks that prior to the incident, some US and Israeli electromagnetic reconnaissance planes flew over the area to detect Russian defences [1].
While Israel is still not a member of Nato, it does have a bureau of liaison within Nato headquarters in Brussels. During the coup d’etat in Kiev, in the context of Nato’s stay behind secret service, thirty Israeli officers and thirty one Israeli soldiers participated in the fighting that broke out in Maidan Square… yet they were fighting on the side of the former Nazi party Svoboda.
The operation at Kertch seems to have been sponsored by Nato. Any why? To create a “Russian threat” which would serve to justify Ukraine becoming a member of the Alliance. This operation was supervised by Ambassador Kurt Volker. The CIA recruited him when he was still a student at Georgetown University. After working at the Agency’s headquarters in Langley, he entered the diplomatic service and became “adviser” to Richard Hoolbroke during the wars in Yugoslavia. He became Victoria Nuland’s assistant when she was the ambassador to Nato and following her departure, stepped into this post. Today he is the ambassador to Kiev.
Translation
Anoosha Boralessa

Thursday, November 29, 2018

US NATO War Agenda -- À qui profite l’incident du détroit de Kertch ?

Valentin Vasilescu récapitule le rôle des avions de reconnaissance US et israéliens dans l’incident de Kertch. Ces données ont été confirmées par le FSB russe (dont dépendent les Gardes-côtes) qui ont divulgué des vidéos de l’interrogatoire des marins ukrainiens et un document saisi à bord d’un de leurs navires.
 | BUCAREST (ROUMANIE)  
JPEG - 25.4 ko
Un avion espion US photographié lors d’une reconnaissance près du détroit de Kertch
Les médias internationaux ont mal informé sur l’incident survenu dans le détroit de Kertch, en essayant de faire croire qu’il s’agissait d’une limitation du trafic maritime international par la Russie. Mon avis est que cet incident peut avoir de graves conséquences militaires pour la Russie qui pourraient entraîner la perte de la Crimée.

Read, translate and SHARE -- THE SAKER -- Thanking Vets for Their "Service" – Why?

Corporation for war (well, that at least makes sense!)
Corporation for war (well, that at least makes sense!)

Thanking Vets for Their "Service" – Why?



Depending on the context, the small word “why” can be totally innocuous or it can be just about the most subversive and even sacrilegious word one can utter. This is probably why I love this word so much: it’s ability to unleash tremendous power against all sorts of sacred cows and unchallenged beliefs. So, today I want to ask everybody why so many people feel the need to thank veterans for their “service”?
But first, let’s debunk a few myths:
First, let’s begin by getting myth #1 out of the way: the notion that Americans don’t like wars. That is totally false. Americans hate losing wars, but if they win them, they absolutely love them. In other words, the typical US reaction to a war depends on the perceived outcome of that war. If it is a success they love it (even if it is a turkey-shoot like Desert Storm). If it is a deniable defeat (say the US/NATO air operations against Serbian forces in Kosovo or the total clusterbleep in Grenada) they will simply “forget” it. And if it is an undeniable defeat (say Iraq or Afghanistan) then, yes, indeed, most Americans will be categorically opposed to it.

Veterans of foreign wars? Wait, I was not aware that there were any other types of vets!

Veterans of foreign wars? Wait, I was not aware that there were any other types of vets!
Next is myth #2: the truth is that no US serviceman or woman has fought a war in defense of the US since at least WWII (and even this one is very debatable considering that the US forced Japan to wage war and since the attack on Pearl Harbor was set-up as a pretext to then attack Japan). Since 1945 there has not been a single situation in which US soldiers defended their land, their towns, their families or their friends from an aggressor. Not one! All the wars fought by the US since 1945 were wars of aggression, wars of choice and most of them were completely illegal to boot (including numerous subversive and covert operations). At most, one can make the argument that US veterans defended the so-called “American way of life,” but only if one accepts that the said “American way of life” requires and mandates imperialist wars of aggression and the wholesale abandonment of the key concepts of international law.
Finally, there is the ugly dirty little secret that everybody knows but, for some reason, very few dare to mention: the decision to join the (all volunteer) US military is one primarily based on financial considerations and absolutely not some kind of generous “service” of the motherland for pure, lofty, ideals. Yes, yes, I know – there were those who did join the US military after 9/11 thinking that the US had been attacked and that they needed to help bring the fight to those who attacked the US. But even with a very modest degree of intelligence, it should have become pretty darn obvious that whether 9/11 was indeed the work of Bin Laden and al-Qaeda or not (personally I am absolutely certain that this was a controlled demolition) – this atrocity was used by the US government to justify a long list of wars which could not have possibly had anything to do with 9/11. Hey, after all, the US decided to attack Iraq (which self-evidently had nothing to do with 9/11) and not the KSA (even though most of the putative hijackers were Saudis and had official Saudi backing). Besides, even if some folks were not smart enough to see through the lies and even if THEY believed that they joined the US military to defend the US, why would the rest of us who by 2018 all know that the attack on Iraq was purely and solely based on lies, “thank” veterans for stupidly waging war for interests they cannot even identify? Since when do we thank people for making wrong and, frankly, immoral decisions?!

Corporate Pizza chains for wars...

Corporate Pizza chains for wars...
Now let’s look at another basic thing: what is military service? The way I see it, military personnel can roughly be split into two categories: those who actually kill people and those who help those who kill people kill people. Right? If you are a machine gunner or a tank driver, then you personally get to kill people. If you are a communications specialist, or a truck driver, or an electrician, you don’t get to kill people yourself, but your work is to make it easier for those who kill people to kill people. So I think that it would be fair to say that joining a military, any military, is to join an organization whose main purpose is to kill people. Of course, that killing can be morally justifiable and, say, in defense of your country and fellow citizens. But that can only be the case if you prepare for a defensive war and, as we all know, the US has not fought such a war for over 70 years now. Which means that with a few increasingly rare exceptions (WWII veterans) ALL the veterans which get thanked for their service did what exactly? If we put it in plain English, what fundamental, crucial decision did ALL these veterans make?
In simple and plain English, veterans are those who signed up to kill people outside the US for money.
Sorry, I know that this sounds offensive to many, but this is a fact. The fact that this decision (to join an organization whose primary purpose is to murder people in their own countries, hundreds and thousands of miles away from the US) could ALSO have been taken for “patriotic” reasons (i.e. by those who believed in what is most likely the most lying propaganda machine in history) or to “see the world” and “become a real man” does not change the fact that if the US military offered NO pay or benefits, NO scholarships, NO healthcare, etc. then the vast majority of those who claim that they joined to “serve” would never have joined in the first place. We all know that, let’s not pretend otherwise! Just look at the arguments recruiters use to convince people to join: they are all about money and benefits! Need more proof? Just look at the kind of social groups who compose the bulk of the US military: uneducated, poor, with minimal career prospects. The simple truth is that financially successful folks very rarely join the military and, when they do, they usually make a career out of it.
As somebody who has lived in the US for a total of 21 years now, I can attest that folks join the military precisely for the same reasons they enter the police force or become correctional officers: because in all those endeavors there is money to be made and benefits to enjoy. Okay, there must be, by definition, the 1% or less who joined these (all violent) careers for purely lofty and noble ideals. But these would be a small, tiny, minority. The overwhelming majority of cops, correctional officers and soldiers joined primarily for material and/or financial reasons.
By the way, since that is the case, is it not also true that the soldier (just like the cop or the correctional officers) has ALREADY received his/her “gratitude” from the society for their “service” in the form of a check? Why do folks then still feel the need to “thank them for their service”? We don’t thank air traffic controllers or logging workers (also very tough careers) for their service, do we? And that is in spite of the fact that air traffic controllers and logging workers did not choose to join an organization whose primary goal is to kill people in their own homes (whether private homes or national ones) which is what soldiers get paid for.
Let me repeat that truism once again, in an even more direct way: veterans are killers hired for money. Period. The rest is all propaganda.
In a normal sane world, one would think that this is primarily a moral and ethical question. I would even say a spiritual one. Surely major religions would have something relevant and clarifying to say about this? Well, in the past they did. In fact, with some slight variations, the principles of what is called a “just war” have been known in the West since at least Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas. According to one source they are:
  • A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
  • A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
  • A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient–see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with “right” intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
  • A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
  • The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
  • The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
  • The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Modern religions for war

Modern religions for war
(Check out this article for a more thorough discussion of this fascinating topic)
Now Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas are hardly heroes of mine, but they are considered as very authoritative in western philosophical thought. Yet, when checked against this list of criteria, all the wars fought by the US are clearly and self-evidently totally unjust: all of them fail on several criteria, and most of them (including the attack on Iraq and Afghanistan) fail on all of them!
But there is no need to go far back into the centuries to find authoritative western thinkers who clearly denounce unjust wars. Did you know that the ultimate crime under international law is not genocide or crimes against humanity?

Robert H Jackson

Robert H Jackson
Nope, the supreme crime under international law is the crime of aggression. In the words of the chief American prosecutor at Nuremberg and Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Robert H. Jackson, the crime of aggression is the supreme crime because “it contains within itself the accumulated evil” of all the other war crimes. He wrote: “To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.”
So from the 4th century through the 20th century, the people of the West always knew what a just war was, and they fully understood that starting such a war is the supreme evil crime under international law. But this goes beyond just major wars. Under international law, the crime of “aggression” does not only refer to a full-scale military attack. Aggression can be defined as the execution of any one of the following acts:
  • Declaration of war upon another State.
  • Invasion by its armed forces, with or without a declaration of war, of the territory of another State.
  • Attack by its land, naval or air forces, with or without a declaration of war, on the territory, vessels or aircraft of another State.
  • A naval blockade of the coasts or ports of another State.
  • Provision of support to armed bands formed in its territory which have invaded the territory of another State, or refusal, notwithstanding the request of the invaded State, to take, in its own territory, all the measures in its power to deprive those bands of all assistance or protection.
Finally, it is important to note here that by these authoritative legal definitions, every single US President is a war criminal under international law! This, in turn, begs the question of whether all the wars fought by US soldiers since 1945 were indeed waged by a legitimate authority (as mentioned by Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas above)? How can that be when the Commander in Chief himself is a war criminal?
Let’s sum it up so far: we have folks who agree to become killers (or killer-assistants), who do that primarily for financial reasons, who then onlyparticipate in illegal and immoral wars of aggression and whose commander in chief is a war criminal.
And they deserve our gratitude why exactly?!
Maybe because so many veterans have been hurt, maimed, traumatized? Maybe because once they leave the armed forces, they don’t get the social and medical support they need? Perhaps merely because wars are horrible? Or maybe because the veterans were lied to and deceived? Or maybe because some (many?) of them did try to stay human, honorable and decent people in spite of the horrors of war all around them? When we think of the horrendous unemployment, homelessness and even suicide figures amongst veterans, we cannot but feel that these are people who have been lied to, cheated and then discarded like a useless tool. So maybe saying “thank you for your service” is the right thing to say?
Nope! These are all excellent reasons to feel compassion and sympathy for veterans, yes. But not gratitude. There is a huge difference here. Everybody, every human, and I strongly believe every creature deserves compassion and sympathy. But it is one thing to say “I feel compassion for you” and quite another to say “thank you for what you did” because that implies that the deed was a moral, good, ethical deed, and that is entirely false.
Major General Smedley Butler put it best when he wrote:
War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small “inside” group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war, a few people make huge fortunes.
If we agree that war is, indeed, a “racket” and that it is conducted “for the benefit of the very few” then it would make sense for these “very few” to express their gratitude to those whom they hired to enrich them. And, in fact, they do. Here is the best example of that:

Corporation for war (well, that at least makes sense!)

Corporation for war (well, that at least makes sense!)
Of course, Google is no more dependent on wars of aggression than any other US corporation. The very nature of the US economy is based on war and has always been based on war. The so-called “American way of life” but without wars of aggression has never been attempted in the past, and it won’t be attempted for as long as the US remains the cornerstone of the AngloZionist Empire and the world hegemony it seeks to impose on the rest of mankind. But until that day arrives the “American way of life” will always imply wars of aggression and the mass murder of innocent people whose only “sin” is to dare to want to live free and not be a slave to the Empire. If you believe that those who dare to want to live free in a truly sovereign country deserve to be murdered and maimed, then yes, by all means – thank the veterans from the bottom of your heart!
But if you don’t believe this, offer them your compassion, but not your gratitude for their crimes.



Imagem

PT -- VLADIMIR PUTIN na Sessão plenária do Fórum Económico Oriental

Excertos da transcrição da sessão plenária do Fórum Económico Oriental

índice


“Copyright Zambon Editore”

PORTUGUÊS

GUERRA NUCLEAR: O DIA ANTERIOR

De Hiroshima até hoje: Quem e como nos conduzem à catástrofe

ÍNDICE

me>

FOX NEWS

TRIBUTE TO A PRESIDENT


NA PRMEIRA PESSOA

Um auto retrato surpreendentemente sincero do Presidente da Rússia, Vladimir Putin

CONTEÚDO

Prefácio

Personagens Principais em 'Na Primeira Pessoa'

Parte Um: O Filho

Parte Dois: O Estudante

Parte Três: O Estudante Universitário

Parte Quatro: O Jovem especialista

Parte Cinco: O Espia

Parte Seis: O Democráta

Parte Sete: O Burocrata

Parte Oito: O Homem de Família

Parte Nove: O Político

Apêndice: A Rússia na Viragem do Milénio





Pigeon's comment: I'm very lucky to have the chance to meet my leader
 ...


Daniele Ganser

Açores


Subtitled in EN/PT

Click upon the small wheel at the right side of the video and choose your language.


xmas





“Glory to God in the highest,

and on Earth

Peace, Good Will toward men.”

This Christmas, Give Peace